On 12/27/2006 12:44 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
The only unsolved issue is the one with underflow checks. I have added
comments explaining the problem in case someone ever figures out how to
address it.
This will behave better for float4:
Datum float4pl(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
---float4
On 12/27/2006 03:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Are you sure? As I remember, computation automatically upgrades to
'double'. See this program and output:
This is platform- and compiler- dependent:
~uname -a
Linux rklinux 2.6.15-27-amd64-generic #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Dec 8 17:50:54 UTC
2006
On 12/27/2006 04:04 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Interesting. I didn't know that, but in the float4pl() function,
because the overflow tests and result is float4, what value is there to
doing things as double --- as soon as the float4 maximum is exceeded, we
throw an error?
This is useful for
Roman Kononov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 12/27/2006 03:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Are you sure? As I remember, computation automatically upgrades to
'double'. See this program and output:
This is platform- and compiler- dependent:
... and probably irrelevant, too. We should store the
Roman Kononov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In float4mul() and float4div(), the computation should be double precision.
Why? It's going to have to fit in a float4 eventually anyway.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
