Re: [GENERAL] Different exponent in error messages - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [GENERAL] Different exponent in error messages
Date
Msg-id 200601232002.k0NK2Mp20081@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: [GENERAL] Different exponent in error messages  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org> writes:
> > I think this is what Andrus is seeing:
>
> > test=> CREATE TABLE foo (n numeric(9,3));
> > CREATE TABLE
> > test=> INSERT INTO foo VALUES (1000000);
> > ERROR:  numeric field overflow
> > DETAIL:  The absolute value is greater than or equal to 10^6 for field with precision 9, scale 3.
> > test=> INSERT INTO foo VALUES (1000000000);
> > ERROR:  numeric field overflow
> > DETAIL:  The absolute value is greater than or equal to 10^9 for field with precision 9, scale 3.
>
> Hm, I thought I tested that same case, but I must've messed up somehow.
>
> Anyway, the code seems to be intentionally reporting the log10 of the
> actual input value, not the limiting log10 for the field size.  This
> behavior goes at least as far back as PG 7.0, so I'm disinclined to
> change it.  We could talk about altering the message wording though,
> if you have a suggestion for something you'd find less confusing.
> Pre-7.4 versions say
>
> ERROR:  overflow on numeric ABS(value) >= 10^9 for field with precision 9 scale 3
>
> so it looks like we just fixed the grammar during the 7.4 message
> wording cleanup, without reflecting about whether the meaning was clear.

Yes, this message clearly needs help.  Here is what I developed:

    test=> CREATE TABLE foo (n numeric(9,3));
    CREATE TABLE
    test=> INSERT INTO foo VALUES (10000000);
    ERROR:  numeric field overflow
    DETAIL:  A field with precision 9, scale 3 must have an absolute value less than 10^6.

and the 10^6 is based on the max digits to the left of the decimal
point, not the input value.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Index: src/backend/utils/adt/numeric.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql/src/backend/utils/adt/numeric.c,v
retrieving revision 1.88
diff -c -c -r1.88 numeric.c
*** src/backend/utils/adt/numeric.c    22 Nov 2005 18:17:23 -0000    1.88
--- src/backend/utils/adt/numeric.c    23 Jan 2006 20:00:54 -0000
***************
*** 3206,3213 ****
                      ereport(ERROR,
                              (errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
                               errmsg("numeric field overflow"),
!                              errdetail("The absolute value is greater than or equal to 10^%d for field with precision
%d,scale %d.", 
!                                        ddigits - 1, precision, scale)));
                  break;
              }
              ddigits -= DEC_DIGITS;
--- 3206,3213 ----
                      ereport(ERROR,
                              (errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
                               errmsg("numeric field overflow"),
!                              errdetail("A field with precision %d, scale %d must have an absolute value less than
10^%d.",
!                                        precision, scale, maxdigits)));
                  break;
              }
              ddigits -= DEC_DIGITS;

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Allow an alias for the target table in UPDATE/DELETE
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: CIDR/INET structure member renaming