From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Clive Page <cgp@star.le.ac.uk>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Non-standard function names
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:26:46 -0400
Message-ID: <3357.1088008006@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0406231631080.2102-100000@peneca.star.le.ac.uk>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0406231631080.2102-100000@peneca.star.le.ac.uk>
Clive Page <cgp@star.le.ac.uk> writes:
> The problems come with LN and LOG which Postgres uses for logarithms to
> base e and 10 respectively: the JDBC standard uses LOG and LOG10
> respectively, so that any fix would mean LOG changed its meaning. I don't
> see an easy solution here; maybe both LOGE and LOG10 could be provided, at
> least there would then be only one difference from the JDBC standard.
loge() strikes me as pointless; you might as well just use ln().
I don't have any objections to the other proposed additions though.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, cgp@star.le.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Non-standard function names
In-Reply-To: <3357.1088008006@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox