| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: unsafe floats |
| Date: | 2004-03-10 22:47:43 |
| Message-ID: | 13606.1078958863@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> So I'd vote for ripping out the range check, or at least reversing
>> the default state of UNSAFE_FLOATS.
> This would surely be wrong. Defining UNSAFE_FLOATS will make
> float4in() not check that its input fits into a 'float', rather than a
> 'double'.
Possibly the appropriate test involves using isfinite() (apparently
spelled finite() some places, but the C99 spec says isfinite). If
that returns false, take the value as good without checking range.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-03-10 22:56:07 | fsync with sync, and Win32 unlink |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-03-10 22:39:07 | Re: selective statement logging |