Re: Precision loss casting float to numeric

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Precision loss casting float to numeric
Date: 2018-02-26 18:55:25
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZvuXgnDAhEMcRJDGki=2pY9RdzxzW=5UxMTBMkZ_X2Yw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 1:29 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> The bigger question here is whether people actually want this behavioral
> change. I think there's probably a bigger chance of complaints that
> "casting 1.1::float8 to numeric now produces some weird,
> incorrectly-rounded result" than that we make anyone happier.

Yeah, I worry about that, too.

Of course, as you know, I also have a deep and abiding skepticism
about IEEE binary floats as a concept. Anomalies are unavoidable; we
can choose exactly which set users experience, but we can eliminate
them because the underlying storage format is poorly-adapted to the
behavior people actually want. It's too bad that IEEE decimal floats
weren't standardized until 2008.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-02-26 19:03:19 Re: prokind column (was Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures)
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2018-02-26 18:51:59 Re: prokind column (was Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures)