Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> * Using an integer is bogus. Use a float4 and forget the weird scaling; >> it should have exactly the same interpretation as stadistinct, except >> for 0 meaning "unset" instead of "unknown".
> I have a deep-seated aversion to storing important values as float, [ shrug... ] Precision is not important for this value: we are not anywhere near needing more than six significant digits for our statistical estimates. Range, on the other hand, could be important when dealing with really large tables. So I'm much more concerned about whether the definition is too restrictive than about whether some uninformed person complains about exactness. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers