Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> In Plauger's _The Standard C Library_ (1992) on p 335 is an excerpt >> from the standard (I think). At the end of a section entitled >> "7.10.1.4 The strtod function" is the following: "If the correct >> value would cause underflow, zero is returned and the value of the >> macro ERANGE is stored in errno." > > The Single Unix Spec also makes it clear that ERANGE on underflow is not > optional: > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/strtod.html > > I think there is no question that OpenBSD is broken. The question for > us is whether we should expend effort to work around that. We already > have a "small-is-zero" workaround comparison file in the main regression > tests, so my thought is that ecpg should probably do likewise ...
The openbsd guys are already aware of the issue and working on a solution: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-tech&m=115756205505000&w=2 Stefan ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
