Thomas Lockhart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually, it may be simply that we (now) implement factorial operators
for int8, int4, and int2. Not sure what previous releases implemented,
but perhaps it is just an issue of knowing which one should be used for
the operation. If before we only had,
Thomas Lockhart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
... Tom Lane is
probably the person who made those changes, and we should have him in
the discussion on whether the current behavior is appropriate.
Keep in mind that he is a mathematician, and I'll guess that he won't
have much patience with folks
Thomas Lockhart writes:
Keep in mind that he is a mathematician, and I'll guess that he won't
have much patience with folks who expect a result for a factorial of a
fractional number ;)
Real mathematicians will be perfectly happy with a factorial for a
fractional number, as long as it's
On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 02:45:10PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Thomas Lockhart writes:
Keep in mind that he is a mathematician, and I'll guess that he won't
have much patience with folks who expect a result for a factorial of a
fractional number ;)
Real mathematicians will be
On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 02:45:10PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Thomas Lockhart writes:
Keep in mind that he is a mathematician, and I'll guess that he won't
have much patience with folks who expect a result for a factorial of a
fractional number ;)
Real mathematicians will
Are you saying we should remove the whole chapter below from the docs?
Hmm. I wrote that :/
I vaguely recall some discussion of this topic (a few months ago?). I'm
not certain that the current behavior was an intended result of changes
in the automatic coersion algorithms, but I think it was.
Are you saying we should remove the whole chapter below from the docs?
Actually, it may be simply that we (now) implement factorial operators
for int8, int4, and int2. Not sure what previous releases implemented,
but perhaps it is just an issue of knowing which one should be used for
the
Are you saying we should remove the whole chapter below from the docs?
Hmm. I wrote that :/
I vaguely recall some discussion of this topic (a few months ago?). I'm
not certain that the current behavior was an intended result of changes
in the automatic coersion algorithms, but I think
Shall we correct the doc or is that a bug?
Fix the docs...
- Thomas
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
In typeconv.sgml we have an example:
tgl= select (4.3 !);
?column?
--
24
(1 row)
However, actually it does not work:
test=# select (4.3 !);
ERROR: Unable to identify a postfix operator '!' for type 'double precision'
You may need to add parentheses or an explicit cast
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
In typeconv.sgml we have an example:
tgl= select (4.3 !);
?column?
--
24
(1 row)
Mathematically speaking, one cannot find the factorial of such a
number. Users could easily cast/round a float to an integer - making it
suitable for
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
In typeconv.sgml we have an example:
tgl= select (4.3 !);
?column?
--
24
(1 row)
Mathematically speaking, one cannot find the factorial of such a
number. Users could easily cast/round a float to an integer - making it
12 matches
Mail list logo
