> IMHO use numeric and some formatting routine is good idea (better than
> current money datetype..)
The "money" type implementation was a workaround/hack to make up for the
lack of a "numeric" type. I've always assumed that it would be removed
as soon as numeric was available and fast enough to
On Sat, 3 Feb 2001, Dave Mertens wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 11:39:29AM -0500, Mitch Vincent wrote:
> > What's the standard on Money type (if there is one) and if it doesn't
> > include the $ (of course that would change based on what currency you were
> > using) then is it any different th
On Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 11:39:29AM -0500, Mitch Vincent wrote:
> What's the standard on Money type (if there is one) and if it doesn't
> include the $ (of course that would change based on what currency you were
> using) then is it any different than numeric(9,2)? numeric(9,2) is what I
> use for
Just a question on this for my own personal satisfaction...
What's the standard on Money type (if there is one) and if it doesn't
include the $ (of course that would change based on what currency you were
using) then is it any different than numeric(9,2)? numeric(9,2) is what I
use for all fields
At 12:07 02/02/01 -0500, Mitch Vincent wrote:
>hhs=> select version();
>version
>---
>PostgreSQL 6.4.2 on i386-unknown-freebsd3.1, compiled by gcc 2.7.2.
[snip]
> If it changed, it looks like it changed a long time ago! :-)
Hmm,
hhs=> select version();
version
---
PostgreSQL 6.4.2 on i386-unknown-freebsd3.1, compiled by gcc 2.7.2.
| currentsalary| money|
4 |
hhs=> select currentsalary from applicants;
$77,000
