Re: reducing NUMERIC size for 9.1

On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> But, looking at it a bit more carefully, isn't the maximum-size logic
>> for numeric rather bogus?
>
> Perhaps, but I think you're confused on at least one point.
> numeric(2,1) has to be able to hold 2 decimal digits, not 2
> NumericDigits (which'd actually be 8 decimal digits given
> the current code).

I get that. The point is: if one of those 2 decimal digits is before
the decimal point and the other is after it, then two NumericDigits
will be used. The value '11'::numeric is only size 10 (untoasted),
but the value '1.1'::numeric is size 12 (untoasted).

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company