David G Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> writes: > Tom Lane-2 wrote >> Indeed. I have not understood why you are insisting on "round up" >> semantics. Wouldn't it make more sense for the behavior to be "round to >> nearest"? That would get rid of any worries about treating zero >> specially.
> Wasn't the goal that all non-zero values result in the feature being > enabled? With round nearest there will still be some values that are > non-zero but that round to zero and thus disable the feature. Ah. Okay, but then what's wrong with the original proposal of "use ceil() instead of floor()"? Basically I think the idea of treating fractions less than one differently from fractions greater than one is bogus; nobody will ever find that intuitive. Or we could adopt Peter's idea that zero shouldn't be special (instead using, say, -1 to turn things off). But I'm afraid that would break way too many peoples' configuration choices. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers