| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Atsushi Torikoshi <atorik(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: type of some table storage params on doc | 
| Date: | 2020-03-18 17:00:12 | 
| Message-ID: | 10300.1584550812@sss.pgh.pa.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2020-Mar-18, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:07:37AM +0900, Atsushi Torikoshi wrote:
>>>> In this case, the parsing uses parse_real(), which is exactly the same
>>>> code path as what real GUCs use.
> Hmm.  So unadorned 'floating point' seems to refer to float8; you have
> to use float(24) in order to get a float4.  The other standards-mandated
> name for float4 seems to be REAL.  (I had a look around but was unable
> to figure out whether the standard mandates exact bit widths other than
> the precision spec).  Since they're not doubles, what about we use REAL
> rather than FLOATING POINT?
Isn't this whole argument based on a false premise?  What parse_real
returns is double, not float.  Also notice that config.sgml consistently
documents those GUCs as <type>floating point</type>.  (I recall having
recently whacked some GUC descriptions that were randomly out of line
with that.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2020-03-18 17:08:47 | Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill) | 
| Previous Message | Mike Palmiotto | 2020-03-18 16:59:51 | Re: Auxiliary Processes and MyAuxProc |