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]

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
       choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not

Reply via email to