Hi, > From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] > David Rowley <david.row...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 16 May 2018 at 02:01, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> 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. >
Thank you. The patch looks fine to me. Also, I have done the "make check" in Windows and Linux environment with no problem. Thanks and best regards, --- Dang Minh Huong NEC Solution Innovators, Ltd. http://www.nec-solutioninnovators.co.jp/en/
