Ok, so we do not follow the standard in our currently implementation,
but we follow the standard in the DDL checking... this is a bit messy
[]s
Carlos
http://www.firebirdnews.org
FireBase - http://www.FireBase.com.br
DY> 10.08.2017 21:57, Carlos H. Cantu wrote:
>> DY> e.g. 1234567890.1234 is a
10.08.2017 21:57, Carlos H. Cantu wrote:
DY> e.g. 1234567890.1234 is a valid (15, 4) but cannot be converted to (15, 6).
Are you sure? I can store such value both in (15, 4) as well in (15, 6).
Formally, it cannot be stored inside (15, 6). But historically, FB
ignores the declared precision
DY> e.g. 1234567890.1234 is a valid (15, 4) but cannot be converted to (15, 6).
Are you sure? I can store such value both in (15, 4) as well in (15, 6).
The range of accepted values for (15, 6) and (17, 6) is the same:
-9223.372.036.854,775808 to 9223.372.036.854,775807
[]s
Carlos
10.08.2017 20:29, Carlos H. Cantu wrote:
Can someone explain why I can't change a field from numeric (15,4) to
numeric (15,6) [error is "New scale specified for column TESTE must be
at most 4."], but can change it to numeric (17,6) ?
Because (15, 6) provides less integral precision (9 digits
Hi!
Can someone explain why I can't change a field from numeric (15,4) to
numeric (15,6) [error is "New scale specified for column TESTE must be
at most 4."], but can change it to numeric (17,6) ?
Internally, all the variations uses the same bigint 64bits and
accepts the same range of values, so
