On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> For other potential reviewers:
>
> I found the origin of the function here.
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4A90BD76.7070804@netspace.net.au
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/AANLkTim4cHELcGPf5w7Zd43_dQi_2RJ_b5_F_idSSbZI%40mail.gmail.com
>
> And the reason for pg_hypot is seen here.
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/407d949e0908222139t35ad3ad2q3e6b15646a27dd64@mail.gmail.com
>
> I think the replacement is now acceptable according to the discussion.
> ======
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.
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
notNAN.
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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers