Re: NUMERIC's transcendental functions

Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com> writes:
> One problem is, that division already has an inherently inexact
> result. Do you intend to rip that out too while at it? (Just
> kidding)

No, but that too is now delivering less precision than it used to:

regression=# select 10.1/7.0;  ?column?
--------------1.4428571429
(1 row)

versus 1.44285714285714 in prior releases.

> Proposal #2.667 would be to have a GUC variable for the default
> precision.

Perhaps, but I'd be satisfied if the default precision were at least
16 digits.  Again, the point is not to have any apparent regression
from 7.2.
        regards, tom lane