On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
... From a mathematician's point of view, however, some of these
functions normally produce irrational numbers anyway, so it seems
unlikely that numeric will be useful. But looking at the definition
of, say,
Tom, thank you for the reviewing/correcting/applying my patches...
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
There is room to argue that the numeric-arithmetic version would be
worth having on the grounds of greater precision or range, but it's a
big chunk of code and the public demand
Sergey E. Koposov wrote:
I think since we are supporting the numeric type as a special
high-precision type, Postgres must have the high-precision
versions of all computational functions. Just my opinion.
Another way to look at it is whether you want to have accurate
computations (numeric) or
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Sergey E. Koposov wrote:
I think since we are supporting the numeric type as a special
high-precision type, Postgres must have the high-precision
versions of all computational functions. Just my opinion.
Another way to look at it is whether you
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
... From a mathematician's point of view, however, some of these
functions normally produce irrational numbers anyway, so it seems
unlikely that numeric will be useful. But looking at the definition
of, say, regr_avgx(Y, X), if all the input
I wrote:
There is room to argue that the numeric-arithmetic version would be
worth having on the grounds of greater precision or range, but it's a
big chunk of code and the public demand for the functionality has not
exactly been overwhelming.
Comments?
Since no one's even bothered to
