Re: [PATCHES] guc

Tom Lane writes:

> Indeed.  Does that mean you'd be happy with restricting the number of
> digits printed for geometrical types only?

Not really.  I'd much rather see the EPSILON removed/revised.  I don't
claim to understand numerical analysis, but that thing is completely
bogus.  I can see how the error would be controllable when you just add
numbers, but once you start multiplying or run trigonometric functions, a
fixed epsilon just doesn't cut it.

If you want to limit the number of digits, why not just reimplement the
geometric types as single precision?

And if we think that an epsilon-based float comparison is important, why
don't we do it everywhere?

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net