Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> This is *not* going in the right direction :-(
>
> > Well, then show me what direction you think is better.
>
> Fewer restrictions, not more. The thrust of what I've been saying
> (and I think Roman too) is to trust in the hardware float-arithmetic
> implementation to be right. Every time you add an additional "error
> check" you are going in the wrong direction.
OK, are you saying that there is a signal we are ignoring for
overflow/underflow, or that we should just silently overflow/underflow
and not throw an error?
--
Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +