From: Petr Fedorov <petr.fedorov@phystech.edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Since '2001-09-09 01:46:40'::timestamp microseconds are lost when extracting epoch
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 14:08:43 +0300
Message-ID: <1c2262e2-6812-7baa-cbdd-63039db12952@phystech.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <18389.1575241151@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <42b73d2d-da12-ba9f-570a-420e0cce19d9@phystech.edu>
<CA+hUKGKgHUbFNKRhvodn4mVU-oqje+HA7jTg_XrWRo4UGhFoqg@mail.gmail.com>
<18389.1575241151@sss.pgh.pa.us>
It appears that extract epoch returns double precision, not float8. And
the program below seems to be demonstrating that there are enough
'floating-point numbers' as defined by IEEE-754 to represent
1000000000.000021 precisely enough:
#include <cmath>
#include <iostream>
#include <iomanip>
#include <limits>
int main() {
double from = 1000000000.000020;
std::cout << std::setprecision(56) << from << " (" << std::hexfloat <<
from << ") " << std::endl;
for(auto i = 0; i < 15; ++i) {
double to = std::nextafter( from, std::numeric_limits<double>::max());
std::cout << std::defaultfloat << to << std::hexfloat << " (" << to
<< ") " << std::endl;
from = to;
}
}
Outputs:
1000000000.00002002716064453125 (0x1.dcd65000000a8p+29)
1000000000.00002014636993408203125 (0x1.dcd65000000a9p+29)
1000000000.0000202655792236328125 (0x1.dcd65000000aap+29)
1000000000.00002038478851318359375 (0x1.dcd65000000abp+29)
1000000000.000020503997802734375 (0x1.dcd65000000acp+29)
1000000000.00002062320709228515625 (0x1.dcd65000000adp+29)
1000000000.0000207424163818359375 (0x1.dcd65000000aep+29)
1000000000.00002086162567138671875 (0x1.dcd65000000afp+29)
1000000000.0000209808349609375 (0x1.dcd65000000bp+29)
1000000000.00002110004425048828125 (0x1.dcd65000000b1p+29)
1000000000.0000212192535400390625 (0x1.dcd65000000b2p+29)
1000000000.00002133846282958984375 (0x1.dcd65000000b3p+29)
1000000000.000021457672119140625 (0x1.dcd65000000b4p+29)
1000000000.00002157688140869140625 (0x1.dcd65000000b5p+29)
1000000000.0000216960906982421875 (0x1.dcd65000000b6p+29)
1000000000.00002181529998779296875 (0x1.dcd65000000b7p+29)
I'm not an expert in floating point math but hopefully it means that no
type change is required - double precision can handle it.
And since it works correctly on v12 for this particular date may be all
what is needed it to verify that it works for the other dates too! For
example what was changed in v12 (comparing to 11.6 I use) so extract
epoch works correctly?
02.12.2019 01:59, Tom Lane пишет:
> Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 10:28 PM Petr Fedorov <petr.fedorov@phystech.edu> wrote:
>>> Obviously, it is due to the fact that extract epoch returns double
>>> precision which in turn has 15 decimal digits precision.
>> I guess this deviation from the SQL standard ("exact numeric") made
>> sense when PostgreSQL used double for timestamps, but would break a
>> lot of queries if we changed it.
> Hmmm ... well, now that you mention it, would it really break things
> if we made it return numeric? There's an implicit cast to float8,
> so it seems like queries requiring that type would still work.
>
> There might be a performance-related argument against switching,
> perhaps.
>
> regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Cc: petr.fedorov@phystech.edu, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, thomas.munro@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Since '2001-09-09 01:46:40'::timestamp microseconds are lost when extracting epoch
In-Reply-To: <1c2262e2-6812-7baa-cbdd-63039db12952@phystech.edu>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox