On 19 April 2016 at 14:38, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Yeah, what I was thinking of printing is something like > > asind(x), > asind(x) IN (-90,-30,0,30,90) AS asind_exact, > ... > > with extra_float_digits=3. The point of this is not necessarily to give > any extra information, though it might, but for failures to be more easily > interpretable. If I'd forgotten how the test worked just a few months > after committing it, how likely is it that some random user faced with a > similar failure would understand what they were seeing? > > Also, though I agree that it might not help much to know whether the > output is 45.0000000000000001 or 44.9999999999999999, our thoughts would > be trending in quite a different direction if it turns out that the > output is radically wrong, or even a NaN. The existing test cannot > exclude that possibility. >
OK, that sounds like it would be a useful improvement to the tests. Regards, Dean -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers