Re: [HACKERS] maximum digits for NUMERIC

2011-04-27 Thread Daniele Varrazzo
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of mar abr 26 12:58:19 -0300 2011: >> >> > Wow, I am so glad someone documented this.  I often do factorial(4000) >> > which generates 12673 digits when teaching classes, and it b

Re: [HACKERS] maximum digits for NUMERIC

2011-04-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of mar abr 26 12:58:19 -0300 2011: > > > Wow, I am so glad someone documented this. I often do factorial(4000) > > which generates 12673 digits when teaching classes, and it bugged me > > that we documented the limit as 1000 digits. >

Re: [HACKERS] maximum digits for NUMERIC

2011-04-26 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of mar abr 26 12:58:19 -0300 2011: > Wow, I am so glad someone documented this. I often do factorial(4000) > which generates 12673 digits when teaching classes, and it bugged me > that we documented the limit as 1000 digits. I keep wondering why you want to

Re: [HACKERS] maximum digits for NUMERIC

2011-04-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 11:44:23AM +0100, Gianni Ciolli wrote: > >> Please find attached v2 of the numeric-doc patch, which takes into > >> account your remarks. In particular, numeric limits are now correct > >> and docume

Re: [HACKERS] maximum digits for NUMERIC

2011-04-03 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 11:44:23AM +0100, Gianni Ciolli wrote: >> Please find attached v2 of the numeric-doc patch, which takes into >> account your remarks. In particular, numeric limits are now correct >> and documented only in that table. > >

Re: [HACKERS] maximum digits for NUMERIC

2011-04-01 Thread Noah Misch
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 11:44:23AM +0100, Gianni Ciolli wrote: > Please find attached v2 of the numeric-doc patch, which takes into > account your remarks. In particular, numeric limits are now correct > and documented only in that table. This version looks sound to me. Thank you. -- Sent via p

Re: [HACKERS] maximum digits for NUMERIC

2011-04-01 Thread Gianni Ciolli
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 03:52:22AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > NumericLong has a 14-bit count of decimal digits for the dscale, giving that > fractional digit limit. It stores the weight as a 16-bit signed count of > base-1 "digits" after the first. For example, 10^4-1 has weight 0, 10^4 > th

Re: [HACKERS] maximum digits for NUMERIC

2011-04-01 Thread Noah Misch
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 06:09:54PM +, Gianni Ciolli wrote: > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 08:46:17AM +, Gianni Ciolli wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 08:14:21PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > > > Agreed. The documentation is suggestive of this limit: > > > > > > # CREATE TABLE n (c numeric(1001

Re: [HACKERS] maximum digits for NUMERIC

2011-03-25 Thread Gianni Ciolli
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 08:46:17AM +, Gianni Ciolli wrote: > On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 08:14:21PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > > Agreed. The documentation is suggestive of this limit: > > > > # CREATE TABLE n (c numeric(1001,0)); > > ERROR: NUMERIC precision 1001 must be between 1 and 1000 > > L

Re: [HACKERS] maximum digits for NUMERIC

2011-03-25 Thread Gianni Ciolli
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 08:14:21PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 11:36:14AM +, Gianni Ciolli wrote: > > maybe we should change the "1000 digits" here: > > > > > > http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/datatype-numeric.html#DATATYPE-NUMERIC-DECIMAL > > > > bec

Re: [HACKERS] maximum digits for NUMERIC

2011-03-20 Thread Noah Misch
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 11:36:14AM +, Gianni Ciolli wrote: > maybe we should change the "1000 digits" here: > > > http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/datatype-numeric.html#DATATYPE-NUMERIC-DECIMAL > > because ISTM that up to 2^17 digits are supported (which makes more > sense t

Re: [HACKERS] maximum digits for NUMERIC

2011-03-11 Thread Gianni Ciolli
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 09:38:03AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Gianni Ciolli writes: > > maybe we should change the "1000 digits" here: > > > > > http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/datatype-numeric.html#DATATYPE-NUMERIC-DECIMAL > > > because ISTM that up to 2^17 digits are supported

Re: [HACKERS] maximum digits for NUMERIC

2011-03-11 Thread Tom Lane
Gianni Ciolli writes: > maybe we should change the "1000 digits" here: > > http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/datatype-numeric.html#DATATYPE-NUMERIC-DECIMAL > because ISTM that up to 2^17 digits are supported This is incorrect. (You're confusing the number of stored digits with

[HACKERS] maximum digits for NUMERIC

2011-03-11 Thread Gianni Ciolli
Hi, maybe we should change the "1000 digits" here: http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/datatype-numeric.html#DATATYPE-NUMERIC-DECIMAL because ISTM that up to 2^17 digits are supported (which makes more sense than 1000). Best regards, Dr. Gianni Ciolli - 2ndQuadrant Italia Postgre