Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h4GMG-000828-82 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 02:44:36 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h4GME-0001AB-Vu for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 02:44:34 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h4GME-0001A3-Oi for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 02:44:34 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h4GMC-0001TA-Q4 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 02:44:34 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x2E2iU9o001226; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 22:44:30 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Robert Haas cc: Dean Rasheed , Michael Paquier , PostgreSQL Hackers , =?UTF-8?Q?L=C3=A6titia_Avrot?= Subject: Re: pgsql: Add support for hyperbolic functions, as well as log10(). In-reply-to: References: <20190313022159.GR13812@paquier.xyz> <24813.1552447002@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20190313050331.GT13812@paquier.xyz> <17820.1552514192@sss.pgh.pa.us> <27340.1552524529@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1015.1552531143@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas message dated "Wed, 13 Mar 2019 22:40:18 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1224.1552531470.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 22:44:30 -0400 Message-ID: <1225.1552531470@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Robert Haas writes: > On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 10:39 PM Tom Lane wrote: >> No, but that's not the hazard. I have a very fresh-in-mind example: >> at one point while tweaking Laetitia's patch, I'd accidentally changed >> datanh so that it called tanh not atanh. The previous set of tests did >> not reveal that :-( > Well, that was a goof, but it's not likely that such a regression will > ever be reintroduced. Sure, but how about this for another example: maybe a given platform hasn't got these functions (or they're in a different library we didn't pull in), but you don't see a failure until you actually call them. We try to set up our link options so that that sort of failure is reported at build time, but I wouldn't care to bet that we've succeeded at that everywhere. regards, tom lane