Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2017-10-24 10:09:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> There's an ancient saying that code can be arbitrarily fast if it >> doesn't have to get the right answer. I think this proposal falls >> in that category.
> Does it? In plenty of cases getting infinity rather than an error is > just about as useful. > This was argued by a certain Tom Lane a few years back ;) > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/19208.1167246902%40sss.pgh.pa.us Yeah, but I lost the argument. For better or worse, our expected behavior is now that we throw errors. You don't get to change that just because it would save a few cycles. >> SIGFPE isn't going to be easy to recover from, nor portable. > Hm? A trivial hack implementing the above survives the regression test, > with the exception of one output change because some functions currently > do *not* check for overflow. What's the issue you're concerned about? The real problem with it is that it's a process-wide setting, and would for example probably break PL/R, or other libraries that are not expecting to lose control to overflows. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
