Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
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?

Silent underflow is fine with me; it's the norm in most all float
implementations and won't surprise anyone.  For overflow I'm OK with
either returning infinity or throwing an error --- but if an error,
it should only be about inf-out-with-non-inf-in, not comparisons to any
artificial MAX/MIN values.

Anyone else have an opinion about this?
If an underflow is not reported (And thus silently treated as zero), then
it'd make sense for me to deal with overflows in a similar way, and just
return infinity.

The most correct solution would IMHO be to provide a guc variable
"strict_float_semantics" that defaults to "off", meaning that neather
overflow nor underflow reports an error. If the variable was set to on,
_both_ overflow and underflow would be reported.

Just my €0.02

greetings, Florian Pflug

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to