| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jackson, DeJuan" <djackson(at)cpsgroup(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Gene Sokolov <hook(at)aktrad(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] 6.5.0 - Overflow bug in AVG( ) |
| Date: | 1999-06-16 15:29:58 |
| Message-ID: | 3767C2F6.CC011A4E@alumni.caltech.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> What does the spec have to say? It bothers me somewhat that an AVG is
> expected to return an integer result at all. Isn't the Average of 1 and 2,
> 1.5 not 1?
Yeah, well, it's a holdover from the original Postgres code. We just
haven't made an effort to change it yet, but it seems a good candidate
for a makeover, no?
I'm pretty sure that the spec would suggest a float8 return value for
avg(int), but I haven't looked recently to refresh my memory.
- Thomas
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
South Pasadena, California
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-06-16 15:30:58 | Re: [HACKERS] 6.5.0 - Overflow bug in AVG( ) |
| Previous Message | José Soares | 1999-06-16 15:28:39 | SET QUERY_LIMIT bug report |