Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: reducing NUMERIC size for 9.1

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: reducing NUMERIC size for 9.1
Date: 2010-07-30 05:13:53
Message-ID: 16754.1280466833@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> But, looking at it a bit more carefully, isn't the maximum-size logic
> for numeric rather bogus?

Perhaps, but I think you're confused on at least one point.
numeric(2,1) has to be able to hold 2 decimal digits, not 2
NumericDigits (which'd actually be 8 decimal digits given
the current code).

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dave PageDate: 2010-07-30 08:07:18
Subject: Re: ERROR: argument to pg_get_expr() must come from system catalogs
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-07-30 04:36:26
Subject: Re: reducing NUMERIC size for 9.1

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group