From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal: Trigonometric functions in degrees |
Date: | 2016-01-19 08:06:56 |
Message-ID: | CAEZATCVkJA+fcFW7WPv6gibmiGDcrwKy0iBEHDw-Sj7Ddr7EhA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 19 January 2016 at 06:32, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> The first patch looks fine to me, a nitpick:
> + /* Be sure to throw an error if the input is infinite --- see dcos */
> s/dcos/docs
>
No, I meant dcos the function there. I would normally write that as
dcos() to indicate that it is a function, but I thought the convention
here was to omit the parentheses after function names. Looking again,
I see several examples of function names with parentheses in comments,
so they could be added here, or the comment could be written a
different way. I'm happy to leave that to the committer's discretion.
> For patch 2, another nitpick :)
> + return ( sin(x * (M_PI / 180.0)) / sin(30.0 * (M_PI / 180.0)) ) / 2.0;
> parenthesis format looks incorrect, too many spaces at the border.
>
> Except those things the second patch looks good to me as well. Let's
> have a committer look at it.
OK. Thanks for looking at this.
Regards,
Dean
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-01-19 08:10:24 | Re: Re: BUG #13685: Archiving while idle every archive_timeout with wal_level hot_standby |
Previous Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2016-01-19 07:33:58 | Re: postgres_fdw join pushdown (was Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs) |