Re: Numeric version of factorial()

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Tom Lane wrote:

> Gavin Sherry <swm@linuxworld.com.au> writes:
> > What are your feelings about numeric argument vs. int4/int8 arguments?
>
> Actually I think it'd be fine to take int8.  We'd not be able to cope
> with any larger input anyway, and the inner loop could be noticeably
> faster if the control logic just deals with int.
>
> We could leave the factorial(numeric) case open for a future
> implementation that uses gamma, if anyone gets hot to do it.
>

Attached is a revised patch based on your Tom's comments. It removes
int[248]fac(), modifies regression tests (which referenced int4fac()), and
implements a much cleaned numeric_fac().

>             regards, tom lane
>

Thanks,

Gavin