On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote: >> >> This patch is pretty trivial. >> > Another slightly less trivial but more useful version. >> > >> > The issue is that there are 3 definitions of modulo, two of which are fine >> > (Knuth floored division and Euclidian), and the last one much less useful. >> > Alas, C (%) & SQL (MOD) choose the bad definition:-( I really need any of >> > the other two. The attached patch adds all versions, with "%" and "mod" >> > consistent with their C and SQL unfortunate counterparts, and "fmod" and >> > "emod" the sane ones. >> >> Three different modulo operators seems like a lot for a language that >> doesn't even have a real expression syntax, but I'll yield to whatever >> the consensus is on this one. > > I wonder if it would be necessary to offer the division operator > semantics corresponding to whatever additional modulo operator we choose > to offer. That is, if we add emod, do we need "ediv" as well?
Maybe we ought to break down and support a real expression syntax. Sounds like that would be better all around. -- 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
