Re: Greatest Common Divisor
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Greatest Common Divisor |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 15876.1578098044@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Greatest Common Divisor (Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On 04/01/2020 01:21, Tom Lane wrote: >> Zero is the "correct" answer for that, isn't it, independently of overflow >> considerations? > I would say not. Oh, right, I was misremembering the identity gcd(a,0) as being 0 not a. Never mind that then. > The correct answer is INT_MIN but we've decided a > negative result is not desirable. Agreed. On the other hand, we could stave off overflow the same way we discussed for lcm: make it return int8. We're still stuck with the special case for INT64_MIN in gcd64 of course, so maybe that's just inconsistent rather than being worthwhile. [ thinks for a bit... ] In practice, I imagine few people use gcd on negative values, so doing weird things with the datatype choices is probably not better than throwing an error for this case. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: