Re: [HACKERS] pow support for pgbench

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Raúl Marín Rodríguez <rmrodriguez(at)carto(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: 2017-12-27 01:03:22
Message-ID: 20171227010322.GD1727@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 11:26:58PM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> > This version looks good to me, except that I wonder if we should try to
> > switch to the floating-point version if the integer version would/does
> > overflow.
>
> My 0.02€ is that it is under the user control who provides either ints or
> doubles as arguments. So I do not think that we should bother, for what my
> opinion is worth.
>
> If this is a new requirement, detecting the integer overflow is probably
> possible with some testing, eg unexpected changes of sign, but that would
> probably add two tests per round, and probably double the computation cost.

And my 2c on the matter is that switching silently from one version to
the other would be unwelcome. The user should be aware if a test is
overflowing a number when specifying an integer.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2017-12-27 01:21:19 Re: [HACKERS] replace GrantObjectType with ObjectType
Previous Message Raúl Marín Rodríguez 2017-12-27 00:45:04 Re: [HACKERS] pow support for pgbench