Re: numeric/decimal docs bug?

From: Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: numeric/decimal docs bug?
Date: 2002-03-05 03:39:41
Message-ID: 5.1.0.14.1.20020305105936.0260ddd0@192.228.128.13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Are there other cases where the pgsql docs may say unlimited where it might
not be?

I remember when the FAQ stated unlimited columns per table (it's been
corrected now so that's good).

Not asking for every limit to be documented but while documentation is
written if one does not yet know (or remember) the actual (or even
rough/estimated) limit it's better to skip it for later than to falsely say
"unlimited". Better to have no signal than noise in this case.

Regards,
Link.

At 11:14 PM 02-03-2002 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>In datatype.sgml:
>
> The type numeric can store numbers of practically
> unlimited size and precision,...
>
>I think this is simply wrong since the current implementation of
>numeric and decimal data types limit the precision up to 1000.
>
>#define NUMERIC_MAX_PRECISION 1000
>
>Comments?

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 2002-03-05 03:47:10 Re: timestamp_part() bug?
Previous Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2002-03-05 02:36:10 Re: Uniqueness of rule, constraint, and trigger names