On Tuesday, September 23, 2014, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> David G Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> writes:
> > Can you either change your mind back to this opinion you held last month
> or
> > commit something you find acceptable - its not like anyone would revert
> > something you commit... :)
> Hey, am I not allowed to change my mind :-) ?
> Seriously though, the main point I was making before stands: if the
> details of the rounding rule matter, then we messed up on choosing the
> units of the particular GUC.  The question is what are we going to do
> about zero being a special case.
> > Everyone agrees non-zero must not round to zero; as long as that happens
> I'm
> > not seeing anyone willing to spending any more effort on the details.
> I'm not entirely sure Peter agrees; he wanted to get rid of zero being
> a special case, rather than worry about making the rounding rule safe
> for that case.  But assuming that that's a minority position:
> it seems to me that adding a new error condition is more work for us,
> and more work for users too, and not an especially sane decision when
> viewed from a green-field perspective.  My proposal last month was in
> response to some folk who were arguing for a very narrow-minded
> definition of backwards compatibility ... but I don't think that's
> really where we should go.
>                         regards, tom lane

This patch should fix the round-to-zero issue.  If someone wants to get rid
of zero as a special case let them supply a separate patch for that

My original concern was things that are rounded to zero now will not be in
9.5 if the non-error solution is chosen.  The risk profile is extremely
small but it is not theoretically zero.

David J.

Reply via email to