From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
Cc: | hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] numeric data type on 6.5 |
Date: | 1999-04-27 14:59:58 |
Message-ID: | 8478.925225198@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
> I'm looking at this right now. I had coded in a fallback to FLOAT8 for
> the integer types because at the time that was the only other useful
> numeric type. However, I'm going to try changing the code to leave a
> failed INTx token as a string of unspecified type, which would be
> typed and converted later using the automatic coersion mechanism.
That would be good as far as it goes, but what about cases with a
decimal point in 'em? Converting to float and then to numeric will
lose precision.
I'm inclined to think you should prevent the parser from converting
*any* numeric constant out of string form until it knows the target data
type.
(IIRC, INT8 has problems similar to NUMERIC's...)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 1999-04-27 15:02:45 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] unknown symbol 'lo_unlink' |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-04-27 14:50:55 | Re: [HACKERS] views and group by (formerly: create view as selec |