Re: Inaccurate results from numeric ln(), log(), exp() and pow()
От | Dean Rasheed |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Inaccurate results from numeric ln(), log(), exp() and pow() |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAEZATCU5hidbidw2rh8i1fPQC8VU4OGAQfeVLjR1KmO-5Lan3g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Inaccurate results from numeric ln(), log(), exp() and pow() (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 13 November 2015 at 21:00, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > BTW, something I find confusing and error-prone is that this patch keeps > on using the term "weight" to refer to numbers expressed in decimal digits > (ie, the approximate log10 of something). Basically everywhere in the > existing code, "weights" are measured in base-NBASE digits, while "scales" > are measured in decimal digits. I've not yet come across anyplace where > you got the units wrong, but it seems like a gotcha waiting to bite the > next hacker. > > I thought for a bit about s/weight/scale/g in the patch, but that is not > le mot juste either, since weight is generally counting digits to the left > of the decimal point while scale is generally counting digits to the > right. > > The best idea that has come to me is to use "dweight" to refer to a weight > measured in decimal digits. Anyone have a better thought? > Yeah, dweight works for me. Regards, Dean
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: