| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>, "'PostgreSQL-development'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: AW: type conversion discussion |
| Date: | 2000-05-19 03:51:22 |
| Message-ID: | 6249.958708282@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> (The workaround here could be to convert numerics that are wider
> than floats to `infinity' :-)
Hmm, that's actually not a bad idea. Infinity is a pretty portable
notion these days, what with nearly everyone toeing the IEEE float
line ... so we could have numeric->float generate a NaN if possible
and only resort to an elog() on machines without NaN.
OTOH, no mathematician will accept the notion that 1e1000 is the
same as infinity ;-). Mathematical purity would probably favor
the elog.
Comments anyone?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-05-19 04:14:38 | Re: OO Patch |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-05-19 03:46:13 | Re: type conversion discussion |