Re: NUMERIC's transcendental functions

Is this an open item?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> > One problem is, that division already has an inherently inexact
> > result. Do you intend to rip that out too while at it? (Just
> > kidding)
>
> No, but that too is now delivering less precision than it used to:
>
> regression=# select 10.1/7.0;
> ?column?
> --------------
> 1.4428571429
> (1 row)
>
> versus 1.44285714285714 in prior releases.
>
> > Proposal #2.667 would be to have a GUC variable for the default
> > precision.
>
> Perhaps, but I'd be satisfied if the default precision were at least
> 16 digits. Again, the point is not to have any apparent regression
> from 7.2.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073