> I think if we're going to do this it should be separated out as its > own patch. Also, I think someone should explain what the reasoning > behind the change is. Do we, for example, foresee that the built-in > code might be faster or less likely to overflow? Because we're > clearly taking a risk -- most trivially, that the BF will break, or > more seriously, that some machines will have versions of this function > that don't actually behave quite the same.
I included removal of pg_hypot() on my patch simply because the comment on the function header is suggesting it. I though if we are going to clean this module up, we better deal it first. I understand the risk. The patches include more changes. It may be a good idea to have those together. > That brings up a related point. How good is our test case coverage > for hypot(), especially in strange corner cases, like this one > mentioned in pg_hypot()'s comment: > > * This implementation conforms to IEEE Std 1003.1 and GLIBC, in that the > * case of hypot(inf,nan) results in INF, and not NAN. I don't see any tests of geometric types with INF or NaN. Currently, there isn't consistent behaviour for them. I don't think we can easily add portable ones on the current state, but we should be able to do so with my patches. I will look into it. > I'm potentially willing to commit a patch that just makes the > pg_hypot() -> hypot() change and does nothing else, if there are not > objections to that change, but I want to be sure that we'll know right > away if that turns out to break. I can split this one into another patch. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
