On 16 May 2018 at 02:01, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> While I'm not in favour of removing Dang's credit here, technically
>> this patch was Tom's. The code added in float.c by Dang's patch
>> (61b200e2f) was effectively reverted by 6bdf1303. Dang's regression
>> tests remain, so should also be credited along with Tom.
>
> 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.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
