Float/Double cast to int

Feng Tian <ftian@vitessedata.com> writes:

Here is a query, server was built witch GCC on Linux, AMD64.

ftian=# select 1.5::int, 1.5::double precision::int, 314.5::int,
314.5::double precision::int;
int4 | int4 | int4 | int4
------+------+------+------
2 | 2 | 315 | 314
(1 row)

I believe this is because rint is broken -- can some expert on IEEE754
please help confirm that this is a bug?

rint() is doing what the IEEE spec says, ie round to nearest even.
Your third expression is doing numeric-to-int, and that code doesn't
obey the IEEE spec. We've had discussions (not too long ago) about
making these behaviors more consistent, but people seem to be too
afraid of backwards-compatibility problems if we change it.

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Ah, thanks! I did not realize numeric comes into play. But, this is even
more interesting -- I would expect numeric is more consistent than
float/double when dealing with stuff like rounding.

I missed the not too long ago discussion, :-) Regardless of the
mechanisms underneath, it would be quite hard to explain this behavior to
customer. Maybe it is time to be brave, and be compatible with reality
instead of backward?

Best,
Feng

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Feng Tian <ftian@vitessedata.com> wrote:

Ah, thanks! I did not realize numeric comes into play. But, this is even
more interesting -- I would expect numeric is more consistent than
float/double when dealing with stuff like rounding.

I missed the not too long ago discussion, :-) Regardless of the mechanisms
underneath, it would be quite hard to explain this behavior to customer.
Maybe it is time to be brave, and be compatible with reality instead of
backward?

Here is some food for thought:
- The original thread of pgsql-bug where this has been discussed first
/messages/by-id/20150320194337.2573.72944@wrigleys.postgresql.org
- Another thread to document this behavior more appropriately (patch pending)
/messages/by-id/CAB7nPqRVCbvYAWL++vCfyzOUujEay21bcLbBk_Mb=+2JX7+e5A@mail.gmail.com
Regards,
--
Michael

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers