Re: numeric/decimal docs bug?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
Subject: Re: numeric/decimal docs bug?
Date: 2002-03-11 01:12:40
Message-ID: 5823.1015809160@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
> #define NUMERIC_MAX_PRECISION 1000
>>
>> I was thinking just the other day that there's no reason for that
>> limit to be so low. Jan, couldn't we bump it up to 8 or 16K or so?

> Why have an arbitrary limit at all? Set it to INT_MAX,

The hard limit is certainly no more than 64K, since we store these
numbers in half of an atttypmod. In practice I suspect the limit may
be less; Jan would be more likely to remember...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2002-03-11 01:33:43 Re: Uniqueness of rule, constraint, and trigger names
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2002-03-11 01:10:17 Re: numeric/decimal docs bug?