From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Add numeric_trim(numeric) |
Date: | 2016-01-07 08:10:06 |
Message-ID: | CAEZATCWTC+aHuoDw1do9kV5OLGCAfdQ=zwymwc2-x5j5axmGMw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7 January 2016 at 00:11, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> A different approach is that I'm not real sure why we want a function
> that returns a modified numeric value at all. To the extent I understood
> Marko's original use case, it seems like what you'd invariably do with the
> result is extract its scale(). Why not skip the middleman and define a
> function named something like minscale() or leastscale(), which returns an
> int that is the smallest scale that would not drop data? (If you actually
> did want the modified numeric value, you could use round(x, minscale(x))
> to get it.)
>
minscale() sounds good to me.
Re-reading Marko's original use case, it sounds like that specific
example would boil down to a check that minscale(x) <= 2, although
that can be done today using trunc(x,2) = x. Still, it seems that
minscale() would be a useful general purpose function to have.
Regards,
Dean
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-01-07 08:28:17 | Re: pglogical - logical replication contrib module |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2016-01-07 08:02:27 | Re: Add numeric_trim(numeric) |