Обсуждение: Monetary Data Types Improvement
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/datatype-money.html Description: It's not explicitly obvious that money doesn't behave like a normal numeric type in that executing a procedure with a negative numeric value for money causes an error. The solution to this is to pass the value as a string. For example, -15.99 for money should be expressed as '-15.99'.
On 2024-03-17 03:16 +0100, PG Doc comments form wrote: > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/datatype-money.html > Description: > > It's not explicitly obvious that money doesn't behave like a normal numeric > type in that executing a procedure with a negative numeric value for money > causes an error. The solution to this is to pass the value as a string. For > example, -15.99 for money should be expressed as '-15.99'. I assume it's intended to be used like other numeric datatypes (although with known issues[1]) given that this page does not mention any operations besides division. I see no reason why unary minus and even unary plus shouldn't be implemented if negative amounts are already possible. Maybe it's not worth the effort if one can just do (OP x::numeric)::money for any unary numeric operator OP instead. CREATE OPERATOR is another option. Maybe add a note like: "Money does not implement all operators that one might expect of a numeric type. For example, use (-amount::money::numeric)::money to negate amount." That would also fit nicely with the existing examples on casting to numeric and float8. The attached patch does that. [1] https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Don%27t_Do_This#Don.27t_use_money -- Erik
I wrote: > The attached patch does that. Hit send to early. -- Erik
Вложения
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 at 07:43, Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name> wrote: > Maybe add a note like: > > "Money does not implement all operators that one might expect of a > numeric type. For example, use (-amount::money::numeric)::money to > negate amount." > > That would also fit nicely with the existing examples on casting to > numeric and float8. The attached patch does that. My vote would go to adding a deprecation notice to that section of the docs. There's some talk [1] about how we discourage the usage of the money type and that goes on to discuss the possibilities of moving it into a contrib module. My hope would be that deprecation notice would steer most people away from using it and therefore reduce the number of questions about it due to fewer new use cases of it. David [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZXgh74Ykj3iWvXKr@paquier.xyz
On 2024-03-18 23:24 +0100, David Rowley wrote: > My vote would go to adding a deprecation notice to that section of the > docs. There's some talk [1] about how we discourage the usage of the > money type and that goes on to discuss the possibilities of moving it > into a contrib module. > > My hope would be that deprecation notice would steer most people away > from using it and therefore reduce the number of questions about it > due to fewer new use cases of it. > > [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZXgh74Ykj3iWvXKr@paquier.xyz +1 Huh, I didn't know that it used to have a deprecation notice at some point. But that note was removed in 8.3: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20071009123315.5fb283c1.darcy%40druid.net -- Erik
On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 at 10:59, Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name> wrote:
On 2024-03-18 23:24 +0100, David Rowley wrote:
> My vote would go to adding a deprecation notice to that section of the
> docs. There's some talk [1] about how we discourage the usage of the
> money type and that goes on to discuss the possibilities of moving it
> into a contrib module.
>
> My hope would be that deprecation notice would steer most people away
> from using it and therefore reduce the number of questions about it
> due to fewer new use cases of it.
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZXgh74Ykj3iWvXKr@paquier.xyz
+1
Huh, I didn't know that it used to have a deprecation notice at some
point. But that note was removed in 8.3:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20071009123315.5fb283c1.darcy%40druid.net
Sadly that was a mistake. Money is not really a useful type.
Dave
On 3/20/24 11:07 AM, Dave Cramer wrote: > > > On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 at 10:59, Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name > <mailto:ewie@ewie.name>> wrote: > > On 2024-03-18 23:24 +0100, David Rowley wrote: > > My vote would go to adding a deprecation notice to that section > of the > > docs. There's some talk [1] about how we discourage the usage of the > > money type and that goes on to discuss the possibilities of moving it > > into a contrib module. > > > > My hope would be that deprecation notice would steer most people away > > from using it and therefore reduce the number of questions about it > > due to fewer new use cases of it. > > > > [1] > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZXgh74Ykj3iWvXKr@paquier.xyz > <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZXgh74Ykj3iWvXKr@paquier.xyz> > > +1 > > Huh, I didn't know that it used to have a deprecation notice at some > point. But that note was removed in 8.3: > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20071009123315.5fb283c1.darcy%40druid.net <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20071009123315.5fb283c1.darcy%40druid.net> > > > Sadly that was a mistake. Money is not really a useful type. Here's[1] the latest "let's remove money" discussion (there's allegedly a hackers thread too, but I'm having trouble finding it. +1 on reinstating the deprecation notice, given it'll be some years before we can fully remove it (at least based on the discussion). Thanks, Jonathan [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/18240-c5da758d7dc1ecf0%40postgresql.org
Вложения
Coming from using SQL Server, money was the easiest way I saw to replicate FORMAT(<value>,'C2') for reporting purposes butthen I guess I could have just cast it as money for the report/view. Beyond that, using NUMERIC(<num>,2) works fine. Brian Powell Jr, EI -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 3:12 PM To: Dave Cramer <davecramer@postgres.rocks>; Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name> Cc: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>; b.powell.jr@outlook.com; pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: Monetary Data Types Improvement On 3/20/24 11:07 AM, Dave Cramer wrote: > > > On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 at 10:59, Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name > <mailto:ewie@ewie.name>> wrote: > > On 2024-03-18 23:24 +0100, David Rowley wrote: > > My vote would go to adding a deprecation notice to that section > of the > > docs. There's some talk [1] about how we discourage the usage of the > > money type and that goes on to discuss the possibilities of moving it > > into a contrib module. > > > > My hope would be that deprecation notice would steer most people away > > from using it and therefore reduce the number of questions about it > > due to fewer new use cases of it. > > > > [1] > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZXgh74Ykj3iWvXKr@paquier.xyz > > <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZXgh74Ykj3iWvXKr@paquier.xyz> > > +1 > > Huh, I didn't know that it used to have a deprecation notice at some > point. But that note was removed in 8.3: > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20071009123315.5fb283c1.darcy%40 > druid.net > <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20071009123315.5fb283c1.darcy%4 > 0druid.net> > > > Sadly that was a mistake. Money is not really a useful type. Here's[1] the latest "let's remove money" discussion (there's allegedly a hackers thread too, but I'm having trouble findingit. +1 on reinstating the deprecation notice, given it'll be some years before we can fully remove it (at least based on the discussion). Thanks, Jonathan [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/18240-c5da758d7dc1ecf0%40postgresql.org