Re: reducing NUMERIC size for 9.1

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> But, looking at it a bit more carefully, isn't the maximum-size logic
> for numeric rather bogus?

Perhaps, but I think you're confused on at least one point.
numeric(2,1) has to be able to hold 2 decimal digits, not 2
NumericDigits (which'd actually be 8 decimal digits given
the current code).

			regards, tom lane