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

Re: NUMERIC key word

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: NUMERIC key word
Date: 2008-01-29 18:20:27
Message-ID: 23408.1201630827@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> In 8.3, it appears that NUMERIC doesn't need to be a key word any longer.  See 
> attached patch.  Was there a reason this was kept in the parser?  Otherwise 
> we could remove it in 8.4.

The reason it was kept was to override the search path --- unqualified
NUMERIC will always be taken as pg_catalog.numeric even if you have some
other type "numeric" in front of it.  I believe we had concluded that this
behavior is required by the SQL spec.  In any case, it would be kinda
weird for DECIMAL to have that behavior and NUMERIC not.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-01-29 19:09:13
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable
Previous:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2008-01-29 17:48:15
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanningGUCvariable

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