| From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: gamma() and lgamma() functions |
| Date: | 2024-09-06 11:58:10 |
| Message-ID: | CAEZATCXL6SBvFeN_WeWFGbkS_cGSS4R+vkEoo626iuMFFSXYzg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 6 Sept 2024 at 10:42, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> ... assuming that tgamma() and lgamma() behave according to spec ...
Nope, that was too much to hope for. Let's see if this fares any better.
Regards,
Dean
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v4-gamma-and-lgamma.patch | text/x-patch | 8.6 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2024-09-06 13:13:43 | Re: Refactoring postmaster's code to cleanup after child exit |
| Previous Message | Jakub Wartak | 2024-09-06 11:56:58 | Re: scalability bottlenecks with (many) partitions (and more) |