On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Greg Stark <gsst...@mit.edu> writes: >> In fact, as I only recently found out, one of the design goals of IEEE >> floats was specifically that they sort lexicographically and use every >> bit pattern. So you can alwys get the "next" float by just >> incrementing your float as an 64-bit integer. Yes that raises your >> value by a different amount, and it's still useful. > > There are certainly some low-level numerical analysis situations where > you want to get the "next" float value, but that hardly constitutes > an argument for treating ranges of floats as discrete rather than > continuous. Normal users of a range datatype aren't going to be > interested in dealing with that sort of inherently machine-specific > behavior.
Yeah, I don't think we want to base this feature on something that arcane. I also have to say that I'm very skeptical of the argument that there is only a small list of types people will want this for. I don't think it's going to turn out to be all that small. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
