| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(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>, Erik Wienhold <ewie(at)ewie(dot)name>, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Exponentiation confusion |
| Date: | 2022-10-18 19:18:28 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoamZUH9M2aN7Y8AdLsPkXe_PKY3Vm+3qqAtPXvc6Oyijw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 6:18 AM Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Overall, I'm quite happy with these results. The question is, should
> this be back-patched?
>
> In the past, I think I've only back-patched numeric bug-fixes where
> the digits output by the old code were incorrect or an error was
> thrown, not changes that resulted in a different number of digits
> being output, changing the precision of already-correct results.
> However, having 10.0^(-18) produce zero seems pretty bad, so my
> inclination is to back-patch, unless anyone objects.
I don't think that back-patching is a very good idea. The bar for
changing query results should be super-high. Applications can depend
on the existing behavior even if it's wrong.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ravi Krishna | 2022-10-18 20:14:05 | COMMIT IN STORED PROCEDURE WHILE IN A LOOP |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-10-18 16:04:48 | Re: byte-size of column values |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Donghang Lin | 2022-10-18 19:48:31 | Re: Bug: pg_regress makefile does not always copy refint.so |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-10-18 19:14:41 | Re: Checking for missing heap/index files |