On 12/27/2006 01:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm not convinced that you're fixing things so much as doing your best
to destroy IEEE-compliant float arithmetic behavior.
I think what we should probably consider is removing CheckFloat4Val
and CheckFloat8Val altogether, and just letting the float arithm
On 12/29/2006 11:27 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Doesn't even compile here (no ).
Where do you compile?
Roman
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
On 12/27/2006 12:44 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
The only unsolved issue is the one with underflow checks. I have added
comments explaining the problem in case someone ever figures out how to
address it.
This will behave better for float4:
Datum float4pl(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
---float4 a
On 12/29/2006 12:23 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Well, then show me what direction you think is better.
Think about this idea please. This has no INF, NaN or range
checks and detects all "bad" cases with any floating point
math.
The only issue is that a bad case is detected only once.
You need to
On 12/27/2006 05:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Roman Kononov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On 12/27/2006 03:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Are you sure? As I remember, computation automatically upgrades to
'double'. See this program and output:
This is platform- and compiler- depe
On 12/27/2006 04:04 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Interesting. I didn't know that, but in the float4pl() function,
because the overflow tests and result is float4, what value is there to
doing things as double --- as soon as the float4 maximum is exceeded, we
throw an error?
This is useful for und
On 12/27/2006 03:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Are you sure? As I remember, computation automatically upgrades to
'double'. See this program and output:
This is platform- and compiler- dependent:
~>uname -a
Linux rklinux 2.6.15-27-amd64-generic #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Dec 8 17:50:54 UTC
2006 x86_6
