Thread: pgsql: Clarify that a non-specified precision NUMERIC has a very high r
Clarify that a non-specified precision NUMERIC has a very high range. Branch ------ master Details ------- http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/0cdbef6cec753a1606c2ce2955e3ff1005ed5ebf Modified Files -------------- doc/src/sgml/datatype.sgml | 5 +++-- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > Clarify that a non-specified precision NUMERIC has a very high range. This is entirely redundant. You've added "(when the precision is not specified)" but that's exactly what the word "otherwise" already conveys. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Re: pgsql: Clarify that a non-specified precision NUMERIC has a very high r
From
Bruce Momjian
Date:
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > Clarify that a non-specified precision NUMERIC has a very high range.
>
> This is entirely redundant. You've added "(when the precision is not
> specified)" but that's exactly what the word "otherwise" already
> conveys.
Right, but the old wording was:
otherwise the current implementation of the <type>NUMERIC</type>
is subject to the limits described in <xref
linkend="datatype-numeric-table">.
I removed the extra "the", and I didn't think people were clear you
could just specify NUMERIC alone. We know you can you can do things
like VARCHAR, but others will probably not realize it so I wanted to
explicity mention it. Other wording?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >> > Clarify that a non-specified precision NUMERIC has a very high range. >> >> This is entirely redundant. You've added "(when the precision is not >> specified)" but that's exactly what the word "otherwise" already >> conveys. > > Right, but the old wording was: > > otherwise the current implementation of the <type>NUMERIC</type> > is subject to the limits described in <xref > linkend="datatype-numeric-table">. > > I removed the extra "the", and I didn't think people were clear you > could just specify NUMERIC alone. We know you can you can do things > like VARCHAR, but others will probably not realize it so I wanted to > explicity mention it. Other wording? Oh, good catch. I agree that removing the extra "the" is a good change, but I think you should remove the parenthetical phrase you added. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>> I removed the extra "the", and I didn't think people were clear you
>> could just specify NUMERIC alone. �We know you can you can do things
>> like VARCHAR, but others will probably not realize it so I wanted to
>> explicity mention it. �Other wording?
> Oh, good catch. I agree that removing the extra "the" is a good
> change, but I think you should remove the parenthetical phrase you
> added.
I agree, the parenthetical phrase is entirely redundant with the earlier
part of the sentence; or if you must have it, it belongs after
"otherwise", not where it is.
Also, could we spell "explicitly" correctly?
regards, tom lane
Re: pgsql: Clarify that a non-specified precision NUMERIC has a very high r
From
Bruce Momjian
Date:
Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> >> I removed the extra "the", and I didn't think people were clear you
> >> could just specify NUMERIC alone. �We know you can you can do things
> >> like VARCHAR, but others will probably not realize it so I wanted to
> >> explicity mention it. �Other wording?
>
> > Oh, good catch. I agree that removing the extra "the" is a good
> > change, but I think you should remove the parenthetical phrase you
> > added.
>
> I agree, the parenthetical phrase is entirely redundant with the earlier
> part of the sentence; or if you must have it, it belongs after
> "otherwise", not where it is.
>
> Also, could we spell "explicitly" correctly?
OK, spelling fixed, and paragraph paired down:
The maximum allowed precision when explicitly specified in the
type declaration is 1000; <type>NUMERIC</type> with no specified
precision is subject to the limits described in <xref
linkend="datatype-numeric-table">.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +