2009/8/4 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Brendan Jurd <dire...@gmail.com> writes: >> Well, I tried this and as it turns out the patch casts the value to a >> float8 in order to pass it on to snprintf for sci-notation formatting. > > Well, that's pretty dumb. Quite aside from the range problem, that > would mean that you lose everything past the sixteenth or so digit. > I think that's sufficient grounds for bouncing the patch back for > rework right there. >
I agree. > What I'd consider instead is calling numeric_out and then working > with the result of that. It would always be f-format, so you'd > have to do your own conversion to e-format, but you could do it > without any risk of precision or range loss. > Yeah, I figured as much. I'll see what I can do about reworking the numeric case. I should be able to post a new revision in the next day or so, but I certainly won't cry foul if this gets punted to September. Cheers, BJ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
