On 16 May 2018 at 09:55, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 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.
>
> Here's a proposed patch for that.
Looks good to me.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
