Re: [Patch] Log10 and hyperbolic functions for SQL:2016 compliance

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz>
Cc: Lætitia Avrot <laetitia(dot)avrot(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [Patch] Log10 and hyperbolic functions for SQL:2016 compliance
Date: 2019-02-11 20:38:47
Message-ID: 24495.1549917527@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz> writes:
> On 12/02/2019 06:44, Lætitia Avrot wrote:
>> I considered that option before writing my patch but I refrained for 2
>> reasons:
>>
>> - There is no consensus about how to name these functions. The
>> standard 8000-2 goes with arsinh, arcosh and artanh,
>>   but you will find easily arcsinh, arccosh and arctanh or even
>> argsinh, argcosh and argtanh. In IT, the names asinh,
>>   acosh and atanh are commonly used too. We might implement them with
>> asinh, acosh and atanh names and add
>>   aliases if SQL standard decide to add it under other names though.

> I can only remember coming across the asinh, acosh, and atanh forms.  In
> 45 years of programming.

I don't think this is a problem. Postgres has never had any hesitation
about adopting C-standard function names if there's nothing in the SQL
standard. The C standard says asinh etc, so those are the names to use.

As Lætitia says, there'd be little problem with adding aliases if someday
the SQL committee decides to add these with other spellings.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2019-02-11 20:54:30 Re: Making all nbtree entries unique by having heap TIDs participate in comparisons
Previous Message Gavin Flower 2019-02-11 20:29:48 Re: [Patch] Log10 and hyperbolic functions for SQL:2016 compliance