On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> But note that the current behavior is worse in this regard. If you specify
> a scale of 4 at the column level, than it is not possible to distinguish
> between 5.000 and 5. on a per-value basis within that column. If the
> scale at the col
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > Sure, but the point is that 5. is not the same as 5.000 today. If
> > you start whacking this around you'll be changing that behavior, I
> > think.
>
> Yeah. And please note that no matter what the OP may think, a l
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On 09/06/2013 07:57 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
>>> But I wonder if we could just declare that that's not what the scale typmod
>>> does. That it's just a maximum scale but it's perfectly valid
Robert Haas writes:
> Sure, but the point is that 5. is not the same as 5.000 today. If
> you start whacking this around you'll be changing that behavior, I
> think.
Yeah. And please note that no matter what the OP may think, a lot of
people *do* consider that there's a useful distinction b
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> But I wonder if we could just declare that that's not what the scale typmod
> does. That it's just a maximum scale but it's perfectly valid for NUMERIC
> data with lower scales to be stored in a column than the typmod says. In a
> way the curren
On 09/06/2013 07:57 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
>> But I wonder if we could just declare that that's not what the scale typmod
>> does. That it's just a maximum scale but it's perfectly valid for NUMERIC
>> data with lower scales to be stored in a co
