Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > I don't think that means we should change our definition of > equality to generally be "are the bytes the same"- clearly that'd > lead to incorrect behavior in the NUMERIC case.
Nobody is talking in any way, shape, or form about changing our concept of what is "equal". We're talking about recognizing that in PostgreSQL "equal" does *not* mean "the same". If we used the equal concept for determining what has changed, if someone was tracking numeric data without precision and scale so that they could track accuracy (by storing the correct number of decimal positions) the accuracy could not be replicated to a materialized view. Of course, streaming replication would replicate the change, but if '1.4' was stored in a column copied into a matview and they later updated the source to '1.40' the increase in accuracy would not flow to the matview. That would be a bug, not a feature. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
