Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Seems we need to resolve this before beta2.
I'd go with making the NUMERIC default precision 16 for v7.3, so
we are backwards compatible on this release (except that it is
now a predictable 16 digit precision instead of an hardware
implementation dependent one).
For v7.4 we can discuss that a while.
Jan
>
> ---
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > One problem is, that division already has an inherently inexact
> > > result. Do you intend to rip that out too while at it? (Just
> > > kidding)
> >
> > No, but that too is now delivering less precision than it used to:
> >
> > regression=# select 10.1/7.0;
> >?column?
> > --
> > 1.4428571429
> > (1 row)
> >
> > versus 1.44285714285714 in prior releases.
> >
> > > Proposal #2.667 would be to have a GUC variable for the default
> > > precision.
> >
> > Perhaps, but I'd be satisfied if the default precision were at least
> > 16 digits. Again, the point is not to have any apparent regression
> > from 7.2.
> >
> > regards, tom lane
> >
> > ---(end of broadcast)---
> > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> >
> > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
> >
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001
> + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
> + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
>
> ---(end of broadcast)---
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
#==#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being
right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive
me. #
#==
[EMAIL PROTECTED] #
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
