| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Our FLOAT(p) precision does not conform to spec |
| Date: | 2003-06-16 23:35:59 |
| Message-ID: | 200306162335.h5GNZxE26867@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Is it worth trying to provide some sort of backwards-compatibility mode?
> We could imagine adding a GUC variable to select binary or decimal
> precision, but I really don't want to. It would increase the amount of
> work needed by more than an order of magnitude, and this problem doesn't
> seem worth it. I'd rather just list this under Incompatibilities in the
> 7.4 release notes.
Let's just change it and list it in the release notes as an
incompatibility --- anything else is too confusing.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2003-06-17 00:25:13 | Reordered .conf file ... need help with LC_vars |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-06-16 22:15:46 | Our FLOAT(p) precision does not conform to spec |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Hall | 2003-06-17 01:01:25 | Re: Our FLOAT(p) precision does not conform to spec |
| Previous Message | weigelt | 2003-06-16 22:20:39 | unique keys on inherited classes |