Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2017-10-24 10:09:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There's an ancient saying that code can be arbitrarily fast if it
>> doesn't have to get the right answer. I think this proposal falls
>> in that category.
> Does it? In plenty of cases getting infinity rather than an error is
> just about as useful.
> This was argued by a certain Tom Lane a few years back ;)
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/19208.1167246902%40sss.pgh.pa.us
Yeah, but I lost the argument. For better or worse, our expected
behavior is now that we throw errors. You don't get to change that
just because it would save a few cycles.
>> SIGFPE isn't going to be easy to recover from, nor portable.
> Hm? A trivial hack implementing the above survives the regression test,
> with the exception of one output change because some functions currently
> do *not* check for overflow. What's the issue you're concerned about?
The real problem with it is that it's a process-wide setting, and would
for example probably break PL/R, or other libraries that are not expecting
to lose control to overflows.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
