X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78E065648E for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:54:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 67257-04 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:54:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D59105649A for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:54:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j1SLsSDM000874; Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:54:28 -0500 (EST) To: tjo@acm.org Cc: Michael Fuhr , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: SQL error: function round(double precision, integer) does In-reply-to: <422350F6.1050106@acm.org> References: <4222570F.5080901@acm.org> <20050228163309.GA105@winnie.fuhr.org> <422350F6.1050106@acm.org> Comments: In-reply-to "TJ O'Donnell" message dated "Mon, 28 Feb 2005 09:12:22 -0800" Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:54:28 -0500 Message-ID: <873.1109627668@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.008 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200502/369 X-Sequence-Number: 20479 "TJ O'Donnell" writes: > Is there some fundamental reason for round(dp) but round(numeric,int)? I think the main argument against supporting round(dp,int) is that the result would be inherently inexact (at least for int>0). regards, tom lane