From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Infinities in type numeric |
Date: | 2020-06-12 17:44:05 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaRuq_Q6Xcgn+PyLDs=v87zbs20Wx_1E23Xpi=WJhB6Sw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 1:01 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> This does tie into something I have a question about in the patch's
> comments though. As the patch stands, numeric(numeric, integer)
> (that is, the typmod-enforcement function) just lets infinities
> through regardless of the typmod, on the grounds that it is/was also
> letting NaNs through regardless of typmod. But you could certainly
> make the argument that Inf should only be allowed in an unconstrained
> numeric column, because by definition it overflows any finite precision
> restriction. If we did that, you'd never see Inf in a
> standard-conforming column, since SQL doesn't allow unconstrained
> numeric columns IIRC. That'd at least ameliorate your concern.
Yes, I agree. It also seems like a more principled choice - I am not
sure why if I ask for a number no larger than 10^3 we ought to permit
infinity.
BTW, has there been any thought to supporting a negative scale for the
numeric data type? If you can cut off digits after the decimal, why
not before?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2020-06-12 17:58:12 | Re: Parallel Seq Scan vs kernel read ahead |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2020-06-12 17:33:38 | Re: Internal key management system |