On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 7:00 PM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > > Alexander Korotkov <[email protected]> writes: > > BTW, this line looks cumbersome. > > > +DETAIL: Valid values are between "0.000000" and > > "179769313486231570814527423731704356798070567525844996598917476803157260780028538760589558632766878171540458953514382464234321326889464182768467546703537516986049910576551282076245490090389328944075868508455133942304583236903222948165808559332123348274797826204144723168738177180919299881250404026184124858368.000000". > > > It's not something introduced by this patch, because other reloptions > > behave the same. Should we change output format for real reloption > > boundaries to '%g' (as guc.c does). It looks much better. > > ERROR: -1 is outside the valid range for parameter "random_page_cost" > > (0 .. 1.79769e+308) > > %g, unmodified, is a bad idea because it loses a lot of precision > in some cases (due to the assumption that nobody cares about more > than six digits). Maybe you could fix that by using %.15g or some > such, but... > > I think that the original patch to use DBL_MAX was itself a bad idea > and should be rethought. It creates (what is in principle) a > platform-dependent limit, for no adequate justification. Why not > just set it to 1e9 or 1e10 or some such?
Yes, I see that it was a bad idea, because many of buildfarm member are turning red... I choose DBL_MAX for the sake of uniformity, because we're currently using DBL_MAX for floating point GUCs and reloptions, which allows large values. But we didn't test them for overflow yet... So, let's switch to 1e10 limit? Patch is attached. ------ Alexander Korotkov Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company
vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor-max-3.patch
Description: Binary data
