On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Hannu Krosing <ha...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 09/06/2013 07:57 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> 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 current behaviour is like bpchar but it would be nice if it was more >>> like varchar >> Sure, but the point is that 5.0000 is not the same as 5.000 today. If >> you start whacking this around you'll be changing that behavior, I >> think. >> > So we already get it wrong by rewriting ?
Ah, no, I don't think so. If you have 5.00000000000000000 and lower the scale, it'll truncate off some of those zeroes to make it fit. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers