On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of mar abr 26 12:58:19 -0300 2011:
Wow, I am so glad someone documented this. I often do factorial(4000)
which generates 12673 digits when teaching classes,
Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 11:44:23AM +0100, Gianni Ciolli wrote:
Please find attached v2 of the numeric-doc patch, which takes into
account your remarks. In particular, numeric limits are now correct
and
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of mar abr 26 12:58:19 -0300 2011:
Wow, I am so glad someone documented this. I often do factorial(4000)
which generates 12673 digits when teaching classes, and it bugged me
that we documented the limit as 1000 digits.
I keep wondering why you want to
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of mar abr 26 12:58:19 -0300 2011:
Wow, I am so glad someone documented this. I often do factorial(4000)
which generates 12673 digits when teaching classes, and it bugged me
that we documented the limit as 1000 digits.
I keep
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 11:44:23AM +0100, Gianni Ciolli wrote:
Please find attached v2 of the numeric-doc patch, which takes into
account your remarks. In particular, numeric limits are now correct
and documented only in that
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 06:09:54PM +, Gianni Ciolli wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 08:46:17AM +, Gianni Ciolli wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 08:14:21PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
Agreed. The documentation is suggestive of this limit:
# CREATE TABLE n (c numeric(1001,0));
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 03:52:22AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
NumericLong has a 14-bit count of decimal digits for the dscale, giving that
fractional digit limit. It stores the weight as a 16-bit signed count of
base-1 digits after the first. For example, 10^4-1 has weight 0, 10^4
through
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 11:44:23AM +0100, Gianni Ciolli wrote:
Please find attached v2 of the numeric-doc patch, which takes into
account your remarks. In particular, numeric limits are now correct
and documented only in that table.
This version looks sound to me. Thank you.
--
Sent via
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 08:14:21PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 11:36:14AM +, Gianni Ciolli wrote:
maybe we should change the 1000 digits here:
http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/datatype-numeric.html#DATATYPE-NUMERIC-DECIMAL
because ISTM that
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 08:46:17AM +, Gianni Ciolli wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 08:14:21PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
Agreed. The documentation is suggestive of this limit:
# CREATE TABLE n (c numeric(1001,0));
ERROR: NUMERIC precision 1001 must be between 1 and 1000
LINE 1:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 11:36:14AM +, Gianni Ciolli wrote:
maybe we should change the 1000 digits here:
http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/datatype-numeric.html#DATATYPE-NUMERIC-DECIMAL
because ISTM that up to 2^17 digits are supported (which makes more
sense than
Hi,
maybe we should change the 1000 digits here:
http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/datatype-numeric.html#DATATYPE-NUMERIC-DECIMAL
because ISTM that up to 2^17 digits are supported (which makes more
sense than 1000).
Best regards,
Dr. Gianni Ciolli - 2ndQuadrant Italia
Gianni Ciolli gianni.cio...@2ndquadrant.it writes:
maybe we should change the 1000 digits here:
http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/datatype-numeric.html#DATATYPE-NUMERIC-DECIMAL
because ISTM that up to 2^17 digits are supported
This is incorrect. (You're confusing the
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 09:38:03AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Gianni Ciolli gianni.cio...@2ndquadrant.it writes:
maybe we should change the 1000 digits here:
http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/datatype-numeric.html#DATATYPE-NUMERIC-DECIMAL
because ISTM that up to 2^17
14 matches
Mail list logo
