| From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reducing NUMERIC size for 8.3 |
| Date: | 2007-06-18 15:53:50 |
| Message-ID: | 1182182031.6855.205.camel@silverbirch.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 17:49 +0200, Andreas Pflug wrote:
> I wonder if the currently waiting patch isn't Good Enough for
> 999.9999999999999999 % of use cases, and "all" others can use numeric
> instead of numeric(1000,800) or so. Especially since there are many
> patches waiting that do need further investigation and refining.
That still has problems.
Another approach would be to restrict the existing datatype NUMERIC to
508 digits, but introduce a new datatype of LONGNUM which allows
arbitrary length numerics for those that *do* care. It might be more
beneficial in the longer run to separate the use cases so we can further
tune them (not sure how just yet...)
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-06-18 15:54:13 | Re: Reducing NUMERIC size for 8.3 |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-06-18 15:50:25 | Re: Tuple alignment |