NUMERIC_MAX_PRECISION is a purely arbitrary constraint on the precision
and scale you can write in a numeric typmod. It might once have had
something to do with the allowed range of a typmod-less numeric value,
but at least since 9.1 we've allowed, and documented that we allowed,
any value that would physically fit in the numeric storage format;
which is something over 100000 decimal digits, not 1000.
Hence, get rid of numeric_in()'s use of NUMERIC_MAX_PRECISION as a limit
on the allowed range of the exponent in scientific-format input. That was
especially silly in view of the fact that you can enter larger numbers as
long as you don't use 'e' to do it. Just constrain the value enough to
avoid localized overflow, and let make_result be the final arbiter of what
is too large. Likewise adjust ecpg's equivalent of this code.
Also get rid of numeric_recv()'s use of NUMERIC_MAX_PRECISION to limit the
number of base-NBASE digits it would accept. That created a dump/restore
hazard for binary COPY without doing anything useful; the wire-format
limit on number of digits (65535) is about as tight as we would want.
In HEAD, also get rid of pg_size_bytes()'s unnecessary intimacy with what
the numeric range limit is. That code doesn't exist in the back branches.
Per gripe from Aravind Kumar. Back-patch to all supported branches,
since they all contain the documentation claim about allowed range of
NUMERIC (cf commit cabf5d84b).
Discussion: <2895.1471195721@sss.pgh.pa.us>
This will parse strings in the format produced by pg_size_pretty() and
return sizes in bytes. This allows queries to be written with clauses
like "pg_total_relation_size(oid) > pg_size_bytes('10 GB')".
Author: Pavel Stehule with various improvements by Vitaly Burovoy
Discussion: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFj8pRD-tGoDKnxdYgECzA4On01_uRqPrwF-8LdkSE-6bDHp0w@mail.gmail.com
Reviewed-by: Vitaly Burovoy, Oleksandr Shulgin, Kyotaro Horiguchi,
Michael Paquier and Robert Haas
Previously, negative values were always displayed in bytes, regardless
of how large they were.
Adrian Vondendriesch, reviewed by Julien Rouhaud and myself
Tom Lane
Dean Rasheed
Robert Haas