From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: get rid of Abs()
In-reply-to: <4beb42b5-216b-bce8-d452-d924d5794c63@enterprisedb.com>
References: <4beb42b5-216b-bce8-d452-d924d5794c63@enterprisedb.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
	message dated "Tue, 04 Oct 2022 09:07:36 +0200"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1819348.1664890176.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2022 09:29:36 -0400
Message-ID: <1819349.1664890176@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1819349.1664890176%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> I was wondering why we have a definition of Abs() in c.h when there are 
> more standard functions such as abs() and fabs() in widespread use.  I 
> think this one is left over from pre-ANSI-C days.  The attached patches 
> replace all uses of Abs() with more standard functions.

I'm not in favor of the llabs() changes.  I think what we really want
in those places, or at least most of them, is "abs() for int64".
That could be had by #define'ing "iabs64" (or some name along that
line) as labs or llabs depending on which type we are using for int64.

Seems OK beyond that nitpick.

			regards, tom lane