On 19 April 2016 at 14:38, Tom Lane <tgl@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
