Re: [HACKERS] pow support for pgbench - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Fabien COELHO
Subject Re: [HACKERS] pow support for pgbench
Date
Msg-id alpine.DEB.2.20.1712212235350.7724@lancre
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] pow support for pgbench  (Raúl Marín Rodríguez <rmrodriguez@carto.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] pow support for pgbench  (Raúl Marín Rodríguez <rmrodriguez@carto.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hello Raúl,

>> v7 needs a rebase.
>>
>> Also, you might try to produce a version which is compatible with Robert's
>> constraints.

My 0.02€ on this new version: Applies cleanly, compiles and works.

I cannot say that I like it more than the previous version.

If a double is always returned, I'm wondering whether keeping the ipow 
version makes much sense: In case of double loss of precision, the 
precision is lost, too bad, and casting back to int won't bring it back.

In the doc, I'm not sure that "Numeric" brings anything. "Exponentiation" 
would be enough.

Also, in pg I just noticed that POW is a shorthand for POWER. Maybe both 
should be supported? Or not.

-- 
Fabien.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: pgsql: Get rid of copy_partition_key
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP: a way forward on bootstrap data