Re: pow support for pgbench

From: Raúl Marín Rodríguez <rmrodriguez(at)carto(dot)com>
To: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pow support for pgbench
Date: 2017-11-06 14:28:30
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Fabien,

Sorry for the confusion, I wasn't aware that SQL pow changed types
depending on
the input value.

I've modified the function to match more closely the behaviour of SQL,
that 0^(negative) returns 'double inf'. Do you think there is any value in
raising an error instead?

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:

> Hello Raúl,
> I've fixed the documentation and added an ipow function that handles both
>> positive and negative ints, having 0^0 == 1 and 0^(negative) ==
>> since that's what my glibc math.h pow() is returning.
> From the comment:
> * For exp < 0 return 0 except when the base is 1 or -1
> I think that it should do what POW does in psql, i.e.:
> fabien=# SELECT POW(2, -2); # 0.25
> that is if exp < 0 the double version should be used, it should
> not return 0.
> Basically the idea is that the pgbench client-side version should behave
> the same as the SQL version.
> --
> Fabien.


*Raúl Marín Rodríguez*

Attachment Content-Type Size
pgbench_pow_v4_pgbench-more-ops-funcs-14.patch text/x-patch 4.9 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2017-11-06 14:30:16 Re: Early locking option to parallel backup
Previous Message Paul Ramsey 2017-11-06 14:10:21 Re: Parallel Plans and Cost of non-filter functions