Re: double precision vs. numeric

From: "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net>
To: aarni(at)kymi(dot)com
Cc: mike(at)fuhr(dot)org, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: double precision vs. numeric
Date: 2006-08-28 13:49:30
Message-ID: 20060828094930.54291424.darcy@druid.net
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-sql

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:32:31 +0300
Aarni Ruuhimäki <aarni(at)kymi(dot)com> wrote:
> > > So this merely means that in future one can not insert empty values into
> > > field of type double precision ?
> >
> > Right. 8.0 issues a warning and 8.1 gives an error:
>
> But NULLs will go in the future too ?

No, NULL has always been the correct way to insert a non-value into a
field. Text/char type fields are the only ones where an empty string
is a valid value.

--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.

In response to

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Henry Ortega 2006-08-28 14:02:32 Trigger on Insert to Update only newly inserted fields?
Previous Message Michael Fuhr 2006-08-28 13:45:25 Re: double precision vs. numeric