| From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Raúl Marín Rodríguez <rmrodriguez(at)carto(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] pow support for pgbench |
| Date: | 2017-12-04 15:47:34 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.20.1712041643180.13084@lancre |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> Please add the new function into the documentation table in
>> alphabetical order.
>
> Fixed in the attached patch.
Yep. Patch applies cleanly. Make check & pgbench check ok. make html ok.
POW is in the right place in the table, sorry I did not check before.
> What's the name of the backend function whose behavior this matches?
>
> As Fabien has mentioned, it tries to behave as "numeric_power". Maybe we
> it'd better if we switch to "dpow" (which is pow with some error
> handling) and always return a double. What do you think?
My 0.02€: I think that having a integer pow implementation when possible
is a good think for pgbench, because the main use case is to deal with
table keys in a benchmarking scripts, which are expected to be integers.
--
Fabien.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-12-04 15:50:53 | Re: [HACKERS] [POC] Faster processing at Gather node |
| Previous Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2017-12-04 15:46:07 | Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization |