Roman Kononov wrote:
> On 12/27/2006 05:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Roman Kononov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> On 12/27/2006 03:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>> Are you sure? As I remember, computation automatically upgrades to
> >>> 'double'. See this program and output:
> >> This is platform- and compiler- dependent:
> > ... and probably irrelevant, too. We should store the result into a
> > float4 variable and then test for isinf() on that; that eliminates the
> > question of whether the compiler did the multiply in a wider format or
> > not.
> You are right provided that you want to ignore underflows and silently
> produce zeros instead.
> If you go this way, I recommend to ignore overflows as well, and silently
> produce infinities and NaNs.
While IEEE seems fine with that, I don't think this is good for SQL. It
is best to produce a meaningful error. The major issue is that our
current code is buggy because it doesn't have consistent behavior, as
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
---------------------------(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