I agree, the current numbers are misleading, nothing other than null
really makes sense, at least the consumers of it can decide what to do if
they need to rather than check for some strange number, sounds good to me.
>
> After more thought I like returning NULL for both precision and scale in
> t
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 11:42:29 -0400,
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The SQL spec doesn't allow unconstrained lengths for these types
> so it gives no guidance about what to display in the information_schema
> views. Any opinions?
It might make some sense to use the maximum length s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> This is part of the Columns View, if you add a numeric field to your table
> and don't provide any Length or Precision then :
> numeric_precision is returned as 65535
> numeric_scale is returned as 65531
Yeah, that's what you'd get for a numeric field with no length
co
