Re: [HACKERS] floating point representationu

[Hiroshi Inoue]

Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > Tom Lane wrote: > > > > > > Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Actually, you're going to have to recode the float*in() functions, using > > > > scanf, and scanf's formats are not always equivalent to printf's. > > > > > > Further thought: one answer to this is to institute four SET variables, > > > two for output and two for input; perhaps FLOAT8_FORMAT, FLOAT8_IN_FORMAT, > > > and similarly for FLOAT4. The input formats would normally just be > > > "%lg" and "%g" but could be changed for special cases (like reading > > > table dumps prepared with %a output format). > > > > > > > >From the first I don't want to change the current default > > output format > > "%." #FLT_DIG "g" (REAL) > > "%." #DBL_DIG "g" (DOUBLE PRECISION) > > for 7.1 because their changes would cause a regress > > test failure. > > But we run regress with the proper setting, right?> How does giving > people the ability to change the defaults affect the regression tests? > Hmm I'm afraid I'm misunderstanding your point. If the default float4(8) output format would be the same as current output format then we would have no problem with the current regress test. But there could be a choise to change default output format to have a large enough presision to distinguish float4(8). Regards, Hiroshi Inoue