On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 14:11, Mike Mascari wrote:
...
> MONEY seems "odd" because it is interpreting its internal
> representation based upon locale and the locale is also determining
> its possible representation, so one database's MONEY isn't really
> the same type as another database's MONEY.
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 02:52:44PM +0200, Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Karel Zak wrote:
>
> > I think it's pretty extendable solution in contrast to the current
> > hardcoded in/out datetypes functions.
>
> Who are we formatting for? If the client wants the data in a s
Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
To me, this seems completely wrong-headed. Data types should be defined
by what operations you can do on them, not by what output format they
have.
I totally agree, lets get rid of money all together.
If not, what makes money s
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Karel Zak wrote:
> I think it's pretty extendable solution in contrast to the current
> hardcoded in/out datetypes functions.
Who are we formatting for? If the client wants the data in a specific
format then they can do SELECT to_char(...), or do the formatting in t
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 04:07:17PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> We keep hoping someone will step up to the plate and rewrite it,
> >> instead. Per previous discussion, the type really ought to be a thin
> >> layer over "numeric", wit
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> To me, this seems completely wrong-headed. Data types should be defined
> by what operations you can do on them, not by what output format they
> have.
I totally agree, lets get rid of money all together.
If not, what makes money so special? Do w
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It seems to me a monetary type is a complex type consisting of currency
> > code and amount -- but you couldn't sum mixed currencies. Or else it is
> > limited to the currency of the locale, which doesn't seem
On P, 2004-08-22 at 23:07, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> We keep hoping someone will step up to the plate and rewrite it,
> >> instead. Per previous discussion, the type really ought to be a thin
> >> layer over "numeric", with most likely n
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 13:29:14 -0400
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you aware that the monetary type is deprecated and is going to be
> dropped entirely pretty soon? I would not recommend that you spend
> any time on it, unless you want to commit to doing a wholesale
> rewrite. Store your
Tom Lane wrote:
> The idea behind the money type is to format per the lc_monetary
> locale setting, which seems perfectly reasonable to me.
To me, this seems completely wrong-headed. Data types should be defined
by what operations you can do on them, not by what output format they
have. With t
Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It seems to me a monetary type is a complex type consisting of currency
> code and amount -- but you couldn't sum mixed currencies. Or else it is
> limited to the currency of the locale, which doesn't seem particularly
> useful.
In a former lifetime I
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> We keep hoping someone will step up to the plate and rewrite it,
>> instead. Per previous discussion, the type really ought to be a thin
>> layer over "numeric", with most likely no operations of its own
>> except I/O conversion.
>
On Sun, 2004-08-22 at 20:40, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mike Mascari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Are you aware that the monetary type is deprecated and is going to be
> >> dropped entirely pretty soon?
>
> > What's taking so long? ;-)
>
> We keep hoping someone will step up to the
Tom Lane wrote:
> We keep hoping someone will step up to the plate and rewrite it,
> instead. Per previous discussion, the type really ought to be a thin
> layer over "numeric", with most likely no operations of its own
> except I/O conversion.
And what would it do with it? Add a currency symbol?
Mike Mascari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Are you aware that the monetary type is deprecated and is going to be
>> dropped entirely pretty soon?
> What's taking so long? ;-)
We keep hoping someone will step up to the plate and rewrite it, instead.
Per previous discussion, the
Tom Lane wrote:
Mahmoud Taghizadeh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
a dirty method to fix this bug is to replace following
Are you aware that the monetary type is deprecated and is going to be
dropped entirely pretty soon?
What's taking so long? ;-)
Mike Mascari
---(end of broad
Mahmoud Taghizadeh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> a dirty method to fix this bug is to replace following
> line
> if (isdigit((unsigned char) *s) && dec < fpoint )
> with
> if (isdigit((unsigned char) *s) && ((dec < fpoint) ||
> fpoint == 0))
This patch is wrong. Something involving "!seen_dot |
I found a little bug in monetary function of
postgresql function cash_in in file cash.c
the problem is that when I run
set lc_monetary to "fa_IR.UTF8"
and try to insert a value to a field with type of
money, I got the following error:
"invalid input syntax for type money: "1000"
at the same time
18 matches
Mail list logo
