On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
> > Agreed- they're independent considerations and the original concern was > about the nonzero-to-zero issue, so I'd suggest we address that first, > though in doing so we will need to consider what *actual* min values we > should have for some cases which currently allow going to zero for the > special case and that, I believe, makes this all 9.5 material and allows > us a bit more freedom in deciding how to hanlde things more generally. > This is 9.5 material because 1) it isn't all that critical and, 2) we DO NOT want a system to not come up because of a GUC paring error after a minor-release update. I don't get where we "need" to do anything else besides that...the whole "actual min values" comment is unclear to me. My thought on rounding is simply no-complaint, no-change; round-to-nearest would be my first choice if implementing anew. David J.
