On 16 May 2018 at 02:01, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > David Rowley <david.row...@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
