David G Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> Tom Lane-2 wrote
>> Indeed. I have not understood why you are insisting on "round up"
>> semantics. Wouldn't it make more sense for the behavior to be "round to
>> nearest"? That would get rid of any worries about treating zero
>> specially.
> Wasn't the goal that all non-zero values result in the feature being
> enabled? With round nearest there will still be some values that are
> non-zero but that round to zero and thus disable the feature.
Ah. Okay, but then what's wrong with the original proposal of "use ceil()
instead of floor()"? Basically I think the idea of treating fractions
less than one differently from fractions greater than one is bogus; nobody
will ever find that intuitive.
Or we could adopt Peter's idea that zero shouldn't be special (instead
using, say, -1 to turn things off). But I'm afraid that would break way
too many peoples' configuration choices.
regards, tom lane
