On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 16:52, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Fuhr <mike@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > I think this is what Andrus is seeing: > > > test=> CREATE TABLE foo (n numeric(9,3)); > > CREATE TABLE > > test=> INSERT INTO foo VALUES (1000000); > > ERROR: numeric field overflow > > DETAIL: The absolute value is greater than or equal to 10^6 for field with precision 9, scale 3. > > test=> INSERT INTO foo VALUES (1000000000); > > ERROR: numeric field overflow > > DETAIL: The absolute value is greater than or equal to 10^9 for field with precision 9, scale 3. > > Hm, I thought I tested that same case, but I must've messed up somehow. > > Anyway, the code seems to be intentionally reporting the log10 of the > actual input value, not the limiting log10 for the field size. This > behavior goes at least as far back as PG 7.0, so I'm disinclined to > change it. We could talk about altering the message wording though, > if you have a suggestion for something you'd find less confusing. > Pre-7.4 versions say > > ERROR: overflow on numeric ABS(value) >= 10^9 for field with precision 9 scale 3 > > so it looks like we just fixed the grammar during the 7.4 message > wording cleanup, without reflecting about whether the meaning was clear. Does the SQL spec say anything about the error message? I can't remember, as it's not a part of the spec I'm real familiar with.
