From: Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in>
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Our FLOAT(p) precision does not conform to spec
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:35:00 +0530
Message-ID: <3EEF0AF4.16718.1AEA03@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7114.1055801746@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On 16 Jun 2003 at 18:15, Tom Lane wrote:
> This is a straightforward change and would not break pg_dump files,
> since fortunately pg_dump always references the underlying types and
> never refers to anything as FLOAT(p). But I wonder whether it is
> likely to break many existing applications. There is a hazard of some
> existing app asking for (what it thinks is) float8 and getting float4
> instead.
Especially apps. which rely on number(3) not to accept anything greate than +/-
999.
I hate the syntax of putting decimal digits as range checkers in SQL field. But
oracle does that and consequently lot of oracle apps rely on it. I won't be
surprised if float(p) notion brings same assurance to such app developers.
I think this would become and FAQ after changes are implemented. Who reads
release notes anyway?..:-)
> Is it worth trying to provide some sort of backwards-compatibility mode?
> We could imagine adding a GUC variable to select binary or decimal
> precision, but I really don't want to. It would increase the amount of
> work needed by more than an order of magnitude, and this problem doesn't
> seem worth it. I'd rather just list this under Incompatibilities in the
> 7.4 release notes.
Is it possible to have float-2(p) and float-10(p)? Would it be adding code
sections instead of replacing it?
That would be cleaner than GUC variable. Everything defaults to float-10(p) for
backward compatibility for a period of a release and in 7.5, it gets switched
to float-2(p). In the meantime, the behaviour remains available who cares to
read the docs and notes.
Just a thought..
Bye
Shridhar
--
Genderplex, n.: The predicament of a person in a restaurant who is unable to
determine his or her designated restroom (e.g., turtles and tortoises). --
Rich Hall, "Sniglets"
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-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Our FLOAT(p) precision does not conform to spec
In-Reply-To: <3EEF0AF4.16718.1AEA03@localhost>
* 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