Re: Precedence of %

From: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Precedence of %
Date: 2005-06-04 15:43:14
Message-ID: 42A1CC12.2040707@familyhealth.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> round() and trunc() also have the virtue that they already have versions
> for type numeric. If we keep the operators then we'll be right back
> with the complaint that was lodged the other day about exponentiation,
> namely unexpected precision loss for numeric inputs:
>
> regression=# select 12345678901234567890.55 %;
> ?column?
> ----------------------
> 1.23456789012346e+19
> (1 row)

I don't even grasp what unary modulo actually means???

Chris

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2005-06-04 15:45:46 Re: pgsql: Fix NUMERIC modulus to properly truncate
Previous Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2005-06-04 15:41:18 Re: pgsql: Fix NUMERIC modulus to properly truncate