| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Nathan M(dot) Davalos <n(dot)davalos(at)sharedmarketing(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Function trunc() behaves in unexpected manner with different data types |
| Date: | 2011-02-25 15:40:09 |
| Message-ID: | 1298648330-sup-361@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Excerpts from Merlin Moncure's message of vie feb 25 12:28:25 -0300 2011:
> no I wouldn't, and the pg_dump extra_float_digits setting addresses my
> primary concern. The client has a similar issue though -- suppose it
> fetches a value from the server and updates it back -- which record
> gets the update? You would get different results if the client was
> using binary or text features of the protocol. Not saying this is
> wrong or needs to be fixed, just pointing it out :-).
>
> update foo set val=val + 1 where val = 2183.68;
I think the mere idea of using floating point equality on a
WHERE clause is bogus, regardless of text or binary format.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2011-02-25 15:48:50 | Re: Function trunc() behaves in unexpected manner with different data types |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-02-25 15:39:19 | Re: BUG #5900: Coredump on executing query |