On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:38 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm willing to commit any of the following things: > > 1. A patch that adds an integer version of pow() but not a double version > 2. A patch that adds a double version of pow() but not an integer version > 3. A patch that adds both an integer version of pow() and a double > version of pow(), with the two versions having different names > > If Raúl is happy with only having an integer version, then I suggest > that he adopt #1 and call it good. Otherwise, given that Fabien wants > the double version, I suggest we call the integer version pow() and > the double version dpow() and go with #3.
It seems to me that 1 and 2 have value on their own for the workloads tried to be emulated, so what you are suggesting in 3 looks good to me. Now why are two different function names necessary? The parsing takes care of argument types through PgBenchValue->type so having one function exposed to the user looks like the most sensible approach to me. -- Michael
