Scott Marlowe wrote: > I could be wrong, and would be unoffended to be proven so, but I don't > think I am. I think that argument is just hand waving. > > 2: How many people who DO work with large exponents and need arbitrary > precision have looked at postgresql, typed in "select 3^100" got back > 5.15377520732011e+47, and simply went to another piece of software and > never looked back? We don't know. And the attitude that it seems > useless to me so it must be useless to everybody else isn't going to > help attract people who do things that seem esoteric and strange to you, > but are important to them. > > 3: Is this worth submitting a patch for? I don't want to spend x hours > making a patch and 10x hours arguing over getting it accepted... :) Seems we could create a NUMERIC^NUMERIC function that does integral exponents accurately and non-integrals using floats. Is the problem that the function can only return NUMERIC or float? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
