| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jacek Becla <becla(at)slac(dot)stanford(dot)edu>, ries van Twisk <pg(at)rvt(dot)dds(dot)nl>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: unexpected check constraint violation |
| Date: | 2009-03-23 23:07:50 |
| Message-ID: | 4597.1237849670@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> You can either cast the check constraint, or change the field type to
> match double precision.
The short answer here is that 0.00603::double precision and
0.00603::real are unlikely to be exactly the same value, and
which one is greater is a matter of which direction the real
got rounded off in. On my machine the former is a bit larger:
regression=# select 0.00603::double precision - 0.00603::real;
?column?
----------------------
1.85072421797494e-10
(1 row)
but on another platform it could be the other way around.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-03-23 23:15:33 | Re: libpq -- reading a timestamp with time zone using binary format |
| Previous Message | Ivan Sergio Borgonovo | 2009-03-23 23:00:50 | Re: text column constraint, newbie question |