Re: [HACKERS] Numeric overflow problem + patch
Patch applied. Thanks. --- David Fetter wrote: On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 11:16:56PM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 05:11:43PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ! DETAIL: A field with precision 4, scale 4 must have an absolute value less than 1. [ becomes ] ! DETAIL: A field with precision 4, scale 4 must have an absolute value less than 1 - 5 * 10^-5. This strikes me as overly pedantic. The message needs to be clear, and the proposed change will just confuse people. I don't know if the code can detect the difference, but a message like: A field with precision 4, scale 4 must *round to* an absolute value less than 1 Since that more accurately describes the actual problem. Have a ncie day, Per your suggestion, how about this patch? Cheers, D -- David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote! [ Attachment, skipping... ] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] Numeric overflow problem + patch
David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ! DETAIL: A field with precision 4, scale 4 must have an absolute value less than 1. [ becomes ] ! DETAIL: A field with precision 4, scale 4 must have an absolute value less than 1 - 5 * 10^-5. This strikes me as overly pedantic. The message needs to be clear, and the proposed change will just confuse people. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] Numeric overflow problem + patch
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 05:11:43PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ! DETAIL: A field with precision 4, scale 4 must have an absolute value less than 1. [ becomes ] ! DETAIL: A field with precision 4, scale 4 must have an absolute value less than 1 - 5 * 10^-5. This strikes me as overly pedantic. The message needs to be clear, and the proposed change will just confuse people. I don't know if the code can detect the difference, but a message like: A field with precision 4, scale 4 must *round to* an absolute value less than 1 Since that more accurately describes the actual problem. Have a ncie day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/ From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [HACKERS] Numeric overflow problem + patch
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 05:11:43PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ! DETAIL: A field with precision 4, scale 4 must have an absolute value less than 1. [ becomes ] ! DETAIL: A field with precision 4, scale 4 must have an absolute value less than 1 - 5 * 10^-5. This strikes me as overly pedantic. The message needs to be clear, and the proposed change will just confuse people. It might, but the error that's currently in there is wrong. With the patch applied, you get: postgres=# SELECT .5::NUMERIC(4,4); ERROR: numeric field overflow DETAIL: A field with precision 4, scale 4 must have an absolute value less than 1 - 5 * 10^-5. postgres=# SELECT .4999::NUMERIC(4,4); numeric - 0. (1 row) I'd thought of changing it to the corresponding numeric piece, but this doesn't work so well for NUMERIC(16,8) and the like. Cheers, D -- David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote! ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] Numeric overflow problem + patch
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 11:16:56PM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 05:11:43PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ! DETAIL: A field with precision 4, scale 4 must have an absolute value less than 1. [ becomes ] ! DETAIL: A field with precision 4, scale 4 must have an absolute value less than 1 - 5 * 10^-5. This strikes me as overly pedantic. The message needs to be clear, and the proposed change will just confuse people. I don't know if the code can detect the difference, but a message like: A field with precision 4, scale 4 must *round to* an absolute value less than 1 What does .999 round to? How about .5? Since that more accurately describes the actual problem. I'd say it doesn't, as worded. Maybe some other wording would be clearer. Cheers, D -- David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote! ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
