Re: proposal: rounding up time value less than its unit.

On Friday, September 26, 2014, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:

> David Johnston wrote:
> > On Friday, September 26, 2014, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > >
> > > > The impression I had was that Stephen was thinking of actually
> setting
> > > > min_val to 1 (or whatever) and handling zero or -1 in some
> out-of-band
> > > > fashion, perhaps by adding GUC flag bits showing those as allowable
> > > > special cases. I'm not sure how we would display such a state of
> affairs
> > > > in pg_settings, but other than that it doesn't sound implausible.
> > >
> > > I would think that if we're going to have "out of band" values, we
> > > should just use "off", not 0 or -1.
> >
> > Except "off" is not always semantically correct - some GUCs (not sure
> which
> > ones ATM) use zero to mean 'default'. I think -1 always means off.
> > Instead of 0 and -1 we'd need 'default' and 'off' with the ability to
> error
> > if there is no meaningful default defined or if a feature cannot be
> turned
> > off.
>
> Sure, "off" (and other spellings of boolean false value) and "default"
> where they make sense, and whatever other values that make sense. My
> point is to avoid collapsing such logical values to integer/floating
> point values just because the option uses a numeric scale.
>
>
My comment was more about storage than data entry. I'm not sure, though,
that we'd want to allow 0 as valid input even if it is acceptable for
Boolean.

David J.