Huong Dangminh writes:
> Thank you. The patch looks fine to me.
> Also, I have done the "make check" in Windows and Linux environment with no
> problem.
Pushed, thanks for reviewing/testing.
regards, tom lane
Hi,
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> David Rowley writes:
> > On 16 May 2018 at 02:01, Tom Lane 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 N
On 16 May 2018 at 14:44, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dean Rasheed writes:
>> In the case 1 ^ NaN = 1, what should the result scale be?
>
> The result is exact, so I don't see a reason to be worried about its
> scale. Messing with the scale would also require expending even
> more code on what is, in the e
On 16 May 2018 at 09:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Rowley writes:
>> On 16 May 2018 at 02:01, Tom Lane 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 H
Dean Rasheed writes:
> On 15 May 2018 at 22:55, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Here's a proposed patch for that.
> In the case 1 ^ NaN = 1, what should the result scale be?
The result is exact, so I don't see a reason to be worried about its
scale. Messing with the scale would also require expending even
On 15 May 2018 at 22:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Rowley writes:
>> On 16 May 2018 at 02:01, Tom Lane 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 H
David Rowley writes:
> On 16 May 2018 at 02:01, Tom Lane 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
