Tom, thank you for the reviewing/correcting/applying my patches...
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
There is room to argue that the numeric-arithmetic version would be
worth having on the grounds of greater precision or range, but it's a
big chunk of code and the public demand for the functionality has not
exactly been overwhelming.
Comments?
Since no one's even bothered to respond, I take it there's insufficient
interest in the numeric versions of these aggregates. I've committed
just the float8 versions.
My opinion on that is
1) I agree that really the float4 version are useless, because they don't
offer anything new... comparing to the float8
2) But I think the numeric versions of these functions are not useless...
(if somebody have numeric columns... )
I don't think the 10-15 additional functions in pg_proc is too much.
Concerning to the amount of code in numeric.c I think it is large, but not
complicated at all, so I don't think that it will be a problem to support
that code.
I think since we are supporting the numeric type as a special
high-precision type, Postgres must have the high-precision
versions of all computational functions. Just my opinion.
I added some very trivial regression tests, which we'll have to keep an
eye on to see if they have any portability problems. We may need to
back off the number of displayed fraction digits to get them to pass
everywhere.
If anyone wants to do better tests, feel free...
I will try to write some better tests and send a patch.
Regards,
Sergey
*******************************************************************
Sergey E. Koposov
Max Planck Institute for Astronomy/Sternberg Astronomical Institute
Tel: +49-6221-528-349
Web: http://lnfm1.sai.msu.ru/~math
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
