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

Re: Precision and scale of numeric column reported as value

From: Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>
To: Sergio_Lob(at)iwaysoftware(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org,Ephraim Spravtsev <Ephraim_Spravtsev(at)ibi(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Precision and scale of numeric column reported as value
Date: 2005-03-23 21:44:19
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Sergio Lob wrote:
> Precision is the number of total digits in the number. Scale is the 
> number of  fractional digits.
> For instance, a column defined as NUMERIC(10,3)  should return 
> precision=10, scale=3.

Yes, I understand that.

> The error only occurs for a column defined as 
> NUMERIC  (without precision or scale specified). Presumably, there is a 
> default precision and scale assigned to the column by postgreSQL, which 
> is not -1.

There appears to be no default, which is why we currently return -1.

Scale should default to 0 per the standard, but defaults to whatever the 
precision is in PostgreSQL (see the docs for details).

The docs claim an implementation precision limit of 1000, but that 
doesn't seem to correspond to the actual implementation -- I can insert 
and retrieve 2000 digits NUMERICs (for example) just fine. I can't see 
an obvious limit on precision in the backend code. There may be a 
theoretical limit somewhere around 2^30 digits, I think (limited by the 
backend's memory allocation sanity checks), but I have not tested that.

Given that there is effectively no default, do you have suggestions for 
a better value to return?


In response to


pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-03-23 21:49:38
Subject: Re: BUG #1517: SQL interval syntax is accepted by the parser,
Previous:From: Andrew - SupernewsDate: 2005-03-23 21:26:55
Subject: Re: BUG #1552: massive performance hit between 7.4 and 8.0.1

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group