Re: [GENERAL] unexpected check constraint violation

2009-03-23 Thread Tom Lane
Scott Marlowe writes: > You can either cast the check constraint, or change the field type to > match double precision. The short answer here is that 0.00603::double precision and 0.00603::real are unlikely to be exactly the same value, and which one is greater is a matter of which direction the

Re: [GENERAL] unexpected check constraint violation

2009-03-23 Thread Scott Marlowe
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Jacek Becla wrote: > Thanks Ries. Do you know if that is a postgres feature or a bug? It's not a bug, it's lack of precision in the definition on your part being interpreted by pgsql. When you create the table, you get this: create table t(d real, check(d>=0.006

Re: [GENERAL] unexpected check constraint violation

2009-03-23 Thread Jacek Becla
Thanks Ries. Do you know if that is a postgres feature or a bug? In practice, I wanted to load the data from a file using COPY FROM. Modifying a large csv file in impractical and not very elegant. thanks, Jacek ries van Twisk wrote: On Mar 23, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Jacek Becla wrote: Hi, Can

Re: [GENERAL] unexpected check constraint violation

2009-03-23 Thread Scott Marlowe
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Jacek Becla wrote: > Hi, > > Can someone explain why postgres complains in this case: > > create table t(d real, check(d>=0.00603)); > insert into t values (0.00603); > > ERROR:  new row for relation "t" violates check constraint "t_d_check" Without any casting, 0

Re: [GENERAL] unexpected check constraint violation

2009-03-23 Thread ries van Twisk
On Mar 23, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Jacek Becla wrote: Hi, Can someone explain why postgres complains in this case: create table t(d real, check(d>=0.00603)); insert into t values (0.00603); ERROR: new row for relation "t" violates check constraint "t_d_check" thanks Jacek try this: insert in

Re: [GENERAL] unexpected check constraint violation

2009-03-23 Thread Christophe
On Mar 23, 2009, at 1:41 PM, Jeremy Harris wrote: Because equality is not well-defined for "real" values? That was my first thought, too, but why would two identical real literals evaluate to different bit patterns? -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To m

Re: [GENERAL] unexpected check constraint violation

2009-03-23 Thread Jeremy Harris
Jacek Becla wrote: create table t(d real, check(d>=0.00603)); insert into t values (0.00603); ERROR: new row for relation "t" violates check constraint "t_d_check" Because equality is not well-defined for "real" values? - Jeremy -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgres

[GENERAL] unexpected check constraint violation

2009-03-23 Thread Jacek Becla
Hi, Can someone explain why postgres complains in this case: create table t(d real, check(d>=0.00603)); insert into t values (0.00603); ERROR: new row for relation "t" violates check constraint "t_d_check" thanks Jacek -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To