Re: More inaccurate results from numeric pow()

From: Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: More inaccurate results from numeric pow()
Date: 2016-05-05 10:24:31
Message-ID: CAEZATCV9JjGeCx=p414XB-yRsk5cb_V6rLq4jxK67pM0TnVeQQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2 May 2016 at 18:38, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I don't much care for the hardwired magic number here, especially since
> exp_var() does not have its limit expressed as "6000" but as
> "NUMERIC_MAX_RESULT_SCALE * 3". I think you should rephrase the limit
> to use that expression, and also add something like this in exp_var():

OK, that makes sense. Done that way.

Regards,
Dean

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gavin Flower 2016-05-05 10:31:05 Re: Naming of new tsvector functions
Previous Message Teodor Sigaev 2016-05-05 09:49:20 Re: atomic pin/unpin causing errors