Tom Lane-2 wrote
> Tommaso Sala <
> tommaso.sala@
> > writes:
>> The strange fact is that if you try to write 0.000001, it gets displayed
>> correctly
>
> My guess is that the adapter miscomputes dscale in only some situations.
>
>> I'd agree with your proposed solution, if I only set a dscale of 2.
>> But I didn't.
>
> You didn't, but the available evidence says that Devart's adapter did.
>
> If you maintain there is some other bug involved, maybe I *should* make
> numeric_recv throw an error, just so the blame gets placed clearly.
>
> regards, tom lane
Would there be value in back-patching the truncation option but making it
fail in 9.5?
I assume this is somehow a different situation than that where someone does,
for instance, (1.0/3.0)::numeric(5,2) or '1.0001':numeric(3,2)...neither of
these should fail.
David J.
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.nabble.com/BUG-12053-Strange-behavior-for-numeric-types-with-unspecified-precision-scale-tp5828340p5828655.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
