Re: numeric regression test passes, but why?

From: ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org (Dagfinn Ilmari =?utf-8?Q?Manns=C3=A5ker?=)
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: numeric regression test passes, but why?
Date: 2018-01-11 12:54:48
Message-ID: d8jr2qw1ron.fsf@dalvik.ping.uio.no
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker) writes:

> The behaviour seems to have changed in 9.6:

Indeed, https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/release-9-6.html
has the following entry:

* Improve the accuracy of the ln(), log(), exp(), and pow() functions
for type numeric (Dean Rasheed)

> $ psql -p5495
> Line style is unicode.
> Border style is 2.
> psql (10.1, server 9.5.10)
> Type "help" for help.
>
> ilmari(at)[local]:5495 ~=# select 0.12 ^ (-25);
> ERROR: division by zero
> ilmari(at)[local]:5495 ~=# \q
>
> $ psql -p5496
> Line style is unicode.
> Border style is 2.
> psql (10.1, server 9.6.6)
> Type "help" for help.
>
> ilmari(at)[local]:5496 ~=# select 0.12 ^ (-25);
> ┌───────────────────────────────────────────┐
> │ ?column? │
> ├───────────────────────────────────────────┤
> │ 104825960103961013959336.4983657883169110 │
> └───────────────────────────────────────────┘
> (1 row)
>
> ilmari(at)[local]:5496 ~=# \q
>
> - ilmari

--
"A disappointingly low fraction of the human race is,
at any given time, on fire." - Stig Sandbeck Mathisen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2018-01-11 13:56:14 Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2018-01-11 12:47:42 Re: [HACKERS] Creating backup history files for backups taken from standbys