Kris Jurka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Tom Lane wrote: >> Today's puzzler for the curious:
> It turns out that this failure was caused by pulling in pg's own printf > implementation to the resulting ECPG program. Hah! Nice detective work, Kris. > Calling printf("%.*f\n", -1, 14.7) results in "14" from pg_printf and > "14.700000" from NetBSD's. So does this represent a bug or shortcoming in pg_printf? A quick look at the spec says that "A negative precision is taken as if the precision were omitted", and rounding to int doesn't sound like the appropriate behavior for bare %f. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate