2009/7/30 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Brendan Jurd<dire...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 2009/7/30 Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com>: >>> 2009/7/29 Brendan Jurd <dire...@gmail.com>: >>>> I don't see any problem with extending this to allow up to 3 exponent >>>> digits ... Pavel, any comment? >>> >>> I am not sure - this function should be used in reports witl fixed >>> line's width. And I am thinking, so it's should be problem - I prefer >>> showing some #.### chars. It's clean signal, so some is wrong, but it >>> doesn't break generating long run reports (like exception in Oracle) >>> and doesn't broke formating like 3 exponent digits. >> >> Hmm. For what it's worth, I think Pavel makes a good point about the >> number of exponent digits -- a large chunk of the use case for numeric >> formatting would be fixed-width reporting. >> >> Limiting to two exponent digits also has the nice property that the >> output always matches the length of the format pattern: >> >> 9.99EEEE >> 1.23E+02 >> >> I don't know whether being able to represent 3-digit exponents >> outweighs the value of reliable fixed-width output. Would anyone else >> care to throw in their opinion? However we end up handling it, we >> will probably need to flesh out the docs regarding this. > > Well, what if my whole database is full of numbers with three and four > digit exponents? Do I have an out, or am I just hosed? >
Maybe we should to support some modificator like Large EEEE - LEEEE or EEEEE ?? that it use 3-digit exponents Pavel > Apologies if this is a stupid question, I haven't read this patch. > > ...Robert > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
