Re: Current int & float overflow checking is slow.

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Current int & float overflow checking is slow.
Date: 2017-10-25 05:33:46
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYDBNX-PDHQiiwrhGjsxbVLmOAn_yRdQNVnYoLTGd_SGQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 9:28 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I don't like changing well-defined, user-visible query behavior for
> no other reason than a performance gain (of a size that hasn't even
> been shown to be interesting, btw). Will we change it back in another
> ten years if the performance tradeoff changes?
>
> Also, if I recall the old discussion properly, one concern was getting
> uniform behavior across different platforms. I'm worried that if we do
> what Andres suggests, we'll get behavior that is not only different but
> platform-specific. Now, to the extent that you believe that every modern
> platform implements edge-case IEEE float behavior the same way, that worry
> may be obsolete. But I don't think I believe that.

Yeah, those are reasonable concerns.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2017-10-25 05:39:26 Re: unique index violation after pg_upgrade to PG10
Previous Message Justin Pryzby 2017-10-25 05:20:39 Re: unique index violation after pg_upgrade to PG10