emil.lenngren@gmail.com writes:
> According to the documentation for data type "numeric" at
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/datatype-numeric.html:
> "up to 131072 digits before the decimal point; up to 16383 digits after the
> decimal point"
> "Note: The maximum allowed precision when explicitly specified in the type
> declaration is 1000; NUMERIC without a specified precision is subject to the
> limits described in Table 8-2."
Note that that's not saying anything about how many significant digits
you can write.
> In the binary representation, digits are grouped into groups of 4. The
> number of such groups is checked in numeric_recv:
> len = (uint16) pq_getmsgint(buf, sizeof(uint16));
> if (len < 0 || len > NUMERIC_MAX_PRECISION + NUMERIC_MAX_RESULT_SCALE)
> ereport(ERROR,
> (errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_BINARY_REPRESENTATION),
> errmsg("invalid length in external \"numeric\" value")));
> but NUMERIC_MAX_PRECISION + NUMERIC_MAX_RESULT_SCALE is 3000 which means a
> limit of only 12000 digits. numeric_in has no such limit.
It's true that numeric_in and numeric_recv aren't too consistent about
the limits they enforce. I doubt that "remove the limits" is the right
answer for that, though. In particular, allowing hundreds of thousands
of digits would be a good way to lock a backend up for very long times
in simple arithmetic operations ...
regards, tom lane
