Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 29A39475E14; Tue,  7 Jan 2003 23:15:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 7D935476DCA; Tue,  7 Jan 2003 23:15:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h084F90U000727;
	Tue, 7 Jan 2003 23:15:09 -0500 (EST)
To: "Thomas O'Connell" <tfo@monsterlabs.com>
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org, pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: double precision to numeric overflow error 
In-reply-to: <tfo-EC7463.21010907012003@news.hub.org> 
References: <20030107152951.R67168-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com>
	<tfo-EC7463.21010907012003@news.hub.org>
Comments: In-reply-to "Thomas O'Connell" <tfo@monsterlabs.com>
	message dated "Tue, 07 Jan 2003 21:01:09 -0600"
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 23:15:09 -0500
Message-ID: <726.1041999309@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517
X-Archive-Number: 200301/274
X-Sequence-Number: 35395

"Thomas O'Connell" <tfo@monsterlabs.com> writes:
> Indeed, it seems as though my inability to count digits was the real 
> problem. Still, does this not strike anyone as a somewhat abstruse error 
> message?

How would you phrase it?

> ERROR:  overflow on numeric ABS(value) >= 10^9 for field with precision
> 15 scale 6

It's technically correct, but if you think you can word it better,
let's see your proposal...

			regards, tom lane