Re: [GENERAL] Floating point error - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Maciek Sakrejda
Subject Re: [GENERAL] Floating point error
Date
Msg-id CAOtHd0D7XQVGudiYYNRd-4U2TzVQzcCRndKeUar6TsH-mJki=A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] Floating point error  (Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>)
Responses Re: [GENERAL] Floating point error  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: [GENERAL] Floating point error  (Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at> wrote:
> I don't think that it is about looking nice.
> C doesn't promise you more than FLT_DIG or DBL_DIG digits of
> precision, so PostgreSQL cannot either.
>
> If you allow more, that would mean that if you store the same
> number on different platforms and query it, it might come out
> differently.  Among other things, that would be a problem for
> the regression tests.

Thank you: I think this is what I was missing, and what wasn't clear
from the proposed doc patch. But then how can pg_dump assume that it's
always safe to set extra_float_digits = 3? Why the discrepancy between
default behavior and what pg_dump gets? It can't know whether the dump
is to be restored into the same system or a different one (and AFAICT,
there's not even an option to tweak extra_float_digits there).


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: sql_drop Event Triggerg
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY