From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
Cc: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, "John D(dot) Burger" <john(at)mitre(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: numeric precision when raising one numeric to |
Date: | 2005-05-20 15:37:52 |
Message-ID: | 200505201537.j4KFbqX20426@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Scott Marlowe wrote:
> I could be wrong, and would be unoffended to be proven so, but I don't
> think I am. I think that argument is just hand waving.
>
> 2: How many people who DO work with large exponents and need arbitrary
> precision have looked at postgresql, typed in "select 3^100" got back
> 5.15377520732011e+47, and simply went to another piece of software and
> never looked back? We don't know. And the attitude that it seems
> useless to me so it must be useless to everybody else isn't going to
> help attract people who do things that seem esoteric and strange to you,
> but are important to them.
>
> 3: Is this worth submitting a patch for? I don't want to spend x hours
> making a patch and 10x hours arguing over getting it accepted... :)
Seems we could create a NUMERIC^NUMERIC function that does integral
exponents accurately and non-integrals using floats. Is the problem
that the function can only return NUMERIC or float?
--
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ed L. | 2005-05-20 15:39:13 | Re: [GENERAL] Image storage questions |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-20 15:28:35 | Re: numeric precision when raising one numeric to |