Re: [HACKERS] pow support for pgbench
От | Fabien COELHO |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] pow support for pgbench |
Дата | |
Msg-id | alpine.DEB.2.20.1712041643180.13084@lancre обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] pow support for pgbench (Raúl Marín Rodríguez <rmrodriguez@carto.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] pow support for pgbench
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
>> Please add the new function into the documentation table in >> alphabetical order. > > Fixed in the attached patch. Yep. Patch applies cleanly. Make check & pgbench check ok. make html ok. POW is in the right place in the table, sorry I did not check before. > What's the name of the backend function whose behavior this matches? > > As Fabien has mentioned, it tries to behave as "numeric_power". Maybe we > it'd better if we switch to "dpow" (which is pow with some error > handling) and always return a double. What do you think? My 0.02€: I think that having a integer pow implementation when possible is a good think for pgbench, because the main use case is to deal with table keys in a benchmarking scripts, which are expected to be integers. -- Fabien.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: