On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
If we're going to disqualify NUMERIC too, we might as well bounce the
feature. Without a fast FLOAT or NUMERIC, you've lost most of the
target audience.
I don't agree with this. I'm going with the opinion that the more
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
I think even the FLOAT case deserves some consideration. What's the
worst-case drift?
Complete loss of all significant digits.
The case I was considering earlier of single-row windows could be made
safe (I think) if we apply the negative transition
David Rowley dgrowle...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
If we're going to disqualify NUMERIC too, we might as well bounce the
feature. Without a fast FLOAT or NUMERIC, you've lost most of the
target audience.
I think the feature is
I wrote:
It's not so good with two-row windows though:
Actually, carrying that example a bit further makes the point even more
forcefully:
Table correct sum of negative-transition
this + next value result
1e201e201e20 + 1
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I wrote:
It's not so good with two-row windows though:
Actually, carrying that example a bit further makes the point even more
forcefully:
Table correct sum of negative-transition
this
201 - 205 of 205 matches
Mail list logo
