BETA2 HOLD: was Re: NUMERIC's transcendental functions

Seems we need to resolve this before beta2.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Lane wrote:
> 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
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> 
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
> 

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073