| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 16:23:55 |
| Message-ID: | 20180111162355.yt76yvde236bab6a@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> 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)
Well, the test line was added with that commit (7d9a4737c268), and
indeed its comment says this used to fail:
+-- cases that used to error out
+select 0.12 ^ (-25);
+ ?column?
+-------------------------------------------
+ 104825960103961013959336.4983657883169110
+(1 row)
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-01-11 16:25:22 | Re: Identifying ALTER TABLE "sub-command" |
| Previous Message | Ildar Musin | 2018-01-11 16:21:46 | Re: General purpose hashing func in pgbench |