Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>> OK, are you saying that there is a signal we are ignoring for
>> overflow/underflow, or that we should just silently overflow/underflow
>> and not throw an error?
> Silent underflow is fine with me; it's the norm in most all float
> implementations and won't surprise anyone. For overflow I'm OK with
> either returning infinity or throwing an error --- but if an error,
> it should only be about inf-out-with-non-inf-in, not comparisons to any
> artificial MAX/MIN values.
> Anyone else have an opinion about this?
If an underflow is not reported (And thus silently treated as zero), then
it'd make sense for me to deal with overflows in a similar way, and just
The most correct solution would IMHO be to provide a guc variable
"strict_float_semantics" that defaults to "off", meaning that neather
overflow nor underflow reports an error. If the variable was set to on,
_both_ overflow and underflow would be reported.
Just my €0.02
greetings, Florian Pflug
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-12-29 15:58:37|
|Subject: Re: TODO: GNU TLS |
|Previous:||From: Stephen Frost||Date: 2006-12-29 15:50:35|
|Subject: Re: TODO: GNU TLS|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2006-12-29 16:02:53|
|Subject: Re: Recent SIGSEGV failures in buildfarm HEAD|
|Previous:||From: Brian Hurt||Date: 2006-12-29 15:45:04|
|Subject: Re: [PATCHES] [BUGS] BUG #2846: inconsistent and|