| 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: | 2017-12-21 21:48:27 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.20.1712212235350.7724@lancre |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Raúl,
>> v7 needs a rebase.
>>
>> Also, you might try to produce a version which is compatible with Robert's
>> constraints.
My 0.02€ on this new version: Applies cleanly, compiles and works.
I cannot say that I like it more than the previous version.
If a double is always returned, I'm wondering whether keeping the ipow
version makes much sense: In case of double loss of precision, the
precision is lost, too bad, and casting back to int won't bring it back.
In the doc, I'm not sure that "Numeric" brings anything. "Exponentiation"
would be enough.
Also, in pg I just noticed that POW is a shorthand for POWER. Maybe both
should be supported? Or not.
--
Fabien.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-12-21 22:16:23 | Re: WIP: a way forward on bootstrap data |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-12-21 21:36:57 | Re: pgsql: Get rid of copy_partition_key |