"Shulgin, Oleksandr" <oleksandr.shul...@zalando.de> writes: > Yes, I now recall that my actual concern was that sample_cnt may calculate > to 0 due to the latest condition above, but that also implies track_cnt == > 0, and then we have a for loop there which will not run at all due to this, > so I figured we can avoid calculating avgcount and running the loop > altogether with that check. I'm not opposed to changing the condition if > that makes the code easier to understand (or dropping it altogether if > calculating 0/0 is believed to be harmless anyway).
Avoiding intentional zero divides is good. It might happen to work conveniently on your machine, but I wouldn't think it's portable. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers