Re: Exponentiation confusion - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Exponentiation confusion
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoamZUH9M2aN7Y8AdLsPkXe_PKY3Vm+3qqAtPXvc6Oyijw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Exponentiation confusion  (Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Exponentiation confusion  (Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 6:18 AM Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Checking for missing heap/index files
Next
From: Donghang Lin
Date:
Subject: Re: Bug: pg_regress makefile does not always copy refint.so