Re: type of some table storage params on doc

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Atsushi Torikoshi <atorik(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: type of some table storage params on doc
Date: 2020-03-18 17:00:12
Message-ID: 10300.1584550812@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2020-Mar-18, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:07:37AM +0900, Atsushi Torikoshi wrote:
>>>> In this case, the parsing uses parse_real(), which is exactly the same
>>>> code path as what real GUCs use.

> Hmm. So unadorned 'floating point' seems to refer to float8; you have
> to use float(24) in order to get a float4. The other standards-mandated
> name for float4 seems to be REAL. (I had a look around but was unable
> to figure out whether the standard mandates exact bit widths other than
> the precision spec). Since they're not doubles, what about we use REAL
> rather than FLOATING POINT?

Isn't this whole argument based on a false premise? What parse_real
returns is double, not float. Also notice that config.sgml consistently
documents those GUCs as <type>floating point</type>. (I recall having
recently whacked some GUC descriptions that were randomly out of line
with that.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2020-03-18 17:08:47 Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill)
Previous Message Mike Palmiotto 2020-03-18 16:59:51 Re: Auxiliary Processes and MyAuxProc