David Rowley <david.row...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Wouldn't this machine have returned 1 before this patch though?
No, don't think so, because it doesn't set EDOM for the case.
Basically what we're doing here is making sure that we get results
conforming to current POSIX even on machines that predate that
standard. There are more of them floating around than I'd have
expected, but it still seems like a good change to make. Maybe
there's an argument for not back-patching, though?
regards, tom lane
