Re: Precision of calculated numeric fields

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Travis Bauer <trbauer(at)indiana(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Precision of calculated numeric fields
Date: 2000-06-06 21:20:06
Message-ID: 961.960326406@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Travis Bauer <trbauer(at)indiana(dot)edu> writes:
> Is this the mod field of the Field class in JDBC2?

Sounds right, but I haven't looked at the JDBC code.

> Does -1 alway mean, for
> numeric types, that the precision is undefined?

Right. In general, -1 is the default typmod if Postgres doesn't have
any better idea what to put in. So type-specific code always has to
be prepared to do something reasonable with that typmod value ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-06-06 21:25:04 Re: Vacuum Question
Previous Message Andrew Sullivan 2000-06-06 20:38:24 getting inet out of char?