| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Greatest Common Divisor |
| Date: | 2020-01-20 18:52:51 |
| Message-ID: | 4c2a91c8-62e4-af28-5ea7-caf7726d9793@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 20/01/2020 11:28, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> Looking at the docs, I think it's worth going a little further than
> just saying what the acronyms stand for -- especially since the
> behaviour for zero inputs is an implementation choice (albeit the most
> common one). I propose the following:
>
> + <entry>
> + greatest common divisor — the largest positive number that
> + divides both inputs with no remainder; returns <literal>0</literal> if
> + both inputs are zero
> + </entry>
>
> and:
>
> + <entry>
> + least common multiple — the smallest strictly positive number
> + that is an integer multiple of both inputs; returns
> <literal>0</literal>
> + if either input is zero
> + </entry>
>
> (I have tried to be precise in my use of terms like "number" and
> "integer", to cover the different cases)
In that case should lcm be "...that is an integral multiple..." since
the numeric version will return numeric?
Other than that, I'm happy with this change.
--
Vik Fearing
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2020-01-20 19:00:14 | Re: Physical replication slot advance is not persistent |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2020-01-20 18:45:46 | Re: SLRU statistics |