Hi,
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > On 16 May 2018 at 02:01, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> I'm not particularly fussed about getting credit for that. However,
> >> looking again at how that patch series turned out --- ie, that we
> >> ensured POSIX behavior for NaNs only in HEAD --- I wonder whether we
> >> shouldn't do what was mentioned in the commit log for 6bdf1303, and
> >> teach numeric_pow() about these same special cases.
> >> It seems like it would be more consistent to change both functions
> >> for v11, rather than letting that other shoe drop in some future
> >> major release.
>
> > I'm inclined to agree. It's hard to imagine these two functions
> > behaving differently in regards to NaN input is useful to anyone.
>
Thank you. The patch looks fine to me.
Also, I have done the "make check" in Windows and Linux environment with no problem.
Thanks and best regards,
---
Dang Minh Huong
NEC Solution Innovators, Ltd.
http://www.nec-solutioninnovators.co.jp/en/
