Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #2846: inconsistent and

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > OK, are you saying that there is a signal we are ignoring for
> > overflow/underflow, or that we should just silently overflow/underflow
> > and not throw an error?
>
> Silent underflow is fine with me; it's the norm in most all float
> implementations and won't surprise anyone. For overflow I'm OK with
> either returning infinity or throwing an error --- but if an error,
> it should only be about inf-out-with-non-inf-in, not comparisons to any
> artificial MAX/MIN values.

OK, I am happy to remove the MIN/MAX comparisons. Those were in the
original code.

The attached, updated patch creates a single CHECKFLOATVAL() macro that
does the overflow/underflow comparisons and throws an error. This also
reduces the isinf() calls. Should I be concerned we are now duplicating
the error text in all call sites?

Regression wording modified now that float4/float8 checks are merged. I
haven't update the platform-specific float* expected files yet, but will
on commit.

--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +