David G Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> Can you either change your mind back to this opinion you held last month or
> commit something you find acceptable - its not like anyone would revert
> something you commit... :)
Hey, am I not allowed to change my mind :-) ?
Seriously though, the main point I was making before stands: if the
details of the rounding rule matter, then we messed up on choosing the
units of the particular GUC. The question is what are we going to do
about zero being a special case.
> Everyone agrees non-zero must not round to zero; as long as that happens I'm
> not seeing anyone willing to spending any more effort on the details.
I'm not entirely sure Peter agrees; he wanted to get rid of zero being
a special case, rather than worry about making the rounding rule safe
for that case. But assuming that that's a minority position:
it seems to me that adding a new error condition is more work for us,
and more work for users too, and not an especially sane decision when
viewed from a green-field perspective. My proposal last month was in
response to some folk who were arguing for a very narrow-minded
definition of backwards compatibility ... but I don't think that's
really where we should go.
regards, tom lane