On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 10:39 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 8:49 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> Meh. As I said before, we're not in the business of improving on what
> >> libm does --- if someone has a beef with the results, they need to take
> >> it to their platform's libm maintainer, not us. The point of testing
> >> this at all is just to ensure that we've wired up the SQL functions
> >> to the library functions correctly.
>
> > Pretty sure we don't even need a test for that. asinh() isn't going
> > to call creat() by mistake.
>
> No, but that's not the hazard. I have a very fresh-in-mind example:
> at one point while tweaking Laetitia's patch, I'd accidentally changed
> datanh so that it called tanh not atanh. The previous set of tests did
> not reveal that :-(
Well, that was a goof, but it's not likely that such a regression will
ever be reintroduced.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company