Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Actually, you're going to have to recode the float*in() functions, using > scanf, and scanf's formats are not always equivalent to printf's. Further thought: one answer to this is to institute four SET variables, two for output and two for input; perhaps FLOAT8_FORMAT, FLOAT8_IN_FORMAT, and similarly for FLOAT4. The input formats would normally just be "%lg" and "%g" but could be changed for special cases (like reading table dumps prepared with %a output format). However, it's becoming quite clear to me that this feature needs more thought than first appeared. Accordingly, I now vote that we not try to fit it into 7.1, but do it in a more considered fashion for 7.2. regards, tom lane
- Re: [HACKERS] floating point representation Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [HACKERS] floating point representation Philip Warner
- Re: [HACKERS] floating point representation Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] floating point representation Tom Lane
- [HACKERS] Re: floating point representation Thomas Lockhart
- [HACKERS] Re: floating point representation Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] floating point representation Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [HACKERS] floating point representation Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] floating point representation Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [HACKERS] floating point representation Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] floating point representation Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] floating point representation Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] floating point representationu Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] floating point representationu Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] floating point representationu Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] floating point representationu Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] floating point representationu Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] floating point representationu Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] floating point representationu Bruce Momjian