Re: [HACKERS] numeric & decimal - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Lockhart
Subject Re: [HACKERS] numeric & decimal
Date
Msg-id 37371E46.13434AA0@alumni.caltech.edu
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] numeric & decimal  (jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck))
Responses Re: [HACKERS] numeric & decimal  (jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck))
Re: [HACKERS] numeric & decimal  (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
> > > NUMERIC  without size is interpreted as NUMERIC(x,6). Why ?
> > > Standard SQL92 says that NUMERIC without size is equivalent
> > > to NUMERIC(1)
>     PostgreSQL specific. Should I change it to standard?

The standard (per Date's book) is:
 NUMERIC == NUMERIC(p), where p is implementation-defined. NUMERIC(p) == NUMERIC(p,0)

Date also explicitly says that:
 "The following are implementation-defined: ... o The default precision for NUMERIC and DECIMAL if there is no
declaredprecision ..."
 

So where did NUMERIC(1) come from? afaict Jan should use what he feels
are reasonable values...
                    - Tom

-- 
Thomas Lockhart                lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "D'Arcy" "J.M." Cain
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] INSERT INTO
Next
From: Oleg Bartunov
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 6.5 cvs ERROR: copyObject: don't know how to copy 604