Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <email@example.com> writes:
> > I have gone through the code and identified all the places that need
> > JROUND, basically places where we do complex calculations that include
> > fsec (fractional seconds). This only affects timestamp=double backends,
> > not timestamp=int64.
> I'm not sure I like this approach. What you've essentially done is to
> remove any possibility of getting more than six digits of fractional
> precision out of a "double" timestamp --- and impose nontrivial
> calculation overhead to make sure that double doesn't have any extra
> I think it'd probably be better to just fix the rounding during display.
If we do that, should we remove some the existing JROUND calls in the
code? I think we have to do this consistently, at least.
Looking at the code, it seems JROUND() is used only in a few places:
What is the pattern on when to use it?
Also, I don't see how rounding is going to fix the problem that the
value is actually _rounded_ at different stages, meaning when you are
doing the output you don't know what came in, as outlined by my
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
firstname.lastname@example.org | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly