Good tip. Thanks. I don't think there are many values stored like
that, so it should make it a bit easier to find.
On 14 April 2014 15:24, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> James David Smith <james.david.smith@gmail.com> writes:
>> Yes, I thought the same. Glad to know that I might be along the right
>> lines. I've started taking parameters out one-by-one to try and find
>> the culprit. Yes, there are a variety of numbers stored as NUMERIC in
>> various places. For example:
>
> AFAIR, there is no such thing as an underflow error in the type-NUMERIC
> code --- it will happily round to zero instead. You should be looking for
> something involving float4 or float8 (aka real/double precision).
>
> regards, tom lane
