Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> This is *not* going in the right direction :-( > > > Well, then show me what direction you think is better. > > Fewer restrictions, not more. The thrust of what I've been saying > (and I think Roman too) is to trust in the hardware float-arithmetic > implementation to be right. Every time you add an additional "error > check" you are going in the wrong direction.
OK, are you saying that there is a signal we are ignoring for overflow/underflow, or that we should just silently overflow/underflow and not throw an error? -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
