Re: unsafe floats

From: Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: unsafe floats
Date: 2004-03-10 22:37:38
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0403102323430.13979-100000@zigo.dhs.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Neil Conway wrote:

> No, 'NaN' is legal float4/float8/numeric input whether UNSAFE_FLOATS
> is defined or not.

Yes, the tests are:

if (fabs(val) > FLOAT8_MAX)
if (val != 0.0 && fabs(val) < FLOAT8_MIN)

and only infinity and not NaN will trigger the overflow. I read it wrong
first.

> Well, CheckFloat4Val() is needed to ensure that the input fits in a
> 'float' (rather than just a 'double').

Sure, for Float4 (maybe working with float in C instead of double and this
check would make a difference, but I havn't really thought about that).

> What number would you like 'Infinity'::float4 and 'Infinity'::float8
> to produce? Is this actually useful functionality?

I would like them to produce the IEEE 754 number 'infinity' (usually
writte 'Inf' in other languages).

> As for it being in the SQL standard, using Acrobat's "text search"
> feature finds zero instances of "infinity" (case insensitive) in the
> 200x draft spec. I haven't checked any more thoroughly than that,
> though.

If they say that it should use IEEE 754 math, then they do say that
Infinity is a number, just like it is in C and lots of other languages
with IEEE 754 math. Being as old as it is, I would guess that the standard
doesn't really say much at all about floats.

Why should pg not do the same as most (all?) other language that use IEEE
754 math?

--
/Dennis Björklund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2004-03-10 22:39:07 Re: selective statement logging
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2004-03-10 22:36:51 Re: selective statement logging