From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: Clarify that a non-specified precision NUMERIC has a very high r |
Date: | 2011-04-26 17:45:39 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTikTLu-ykL1_pXMXtpzLbbzS=vyLxw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers |
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> > Clarify that a non-specified precision NUMERIC has a very high range.
>>
>> This is entirely redundant. You've added "(when the precision is not
>> specified)" but that's exactly what the word "otherwise" already
>> conveys.
>
> Right, but the old wording was:
>
> otherwise the current implementation of the <type>NUMERIC</type>
> is subject to the limits described in <xref
> linkend="datatype-numeric-table">.
>
> I removed the extra "the", and I didn't think people were clear you
> could just specify NUMERIC alone. We know you can you can do things
> like VARCHAR, but others will probably not realize it so I wanted to
> explicity mention it. Other wording?
Oh, good catch. I agree that removing the extra "the" is a good
change, but I think you should remove the parenthetical phrase you
added.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-04-26 18:28:10 | Re: pgsql: Clarify that a non-specified precision NUMERIC has a very high r |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-04-26 17:28:05 | Re: pgsql: Clarify that a non-specified precision NUMERIC has a very high r |