Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> I do wonder if we're just punching ourselves in the face with the
> signature of these checks. Part of the problem here really comes from
> using the same function to handle a number of different checks.
Yeah, I've thought that too. It's *far* from clear that this thing
is a win at all, other than your point about the number of copies of
the ereport call. It's bulky, it's hard to optimize, and I have
never thought it was more readable than the direct tests it replaced.
> For most places it'd probably end up being easier to read and to
> optimize if we just wrote them as
> if (unlikely(isinf(result)) && !isinf(arg))
> float_overflow_error();
> and when needed added a
> else if (unlikely(result == 0) && arg1 != 0.0)
> float_underflow_error();
+1
regards, tom lane
