Re: [HACKERS] Re: [DOCS] Re: FE/BE protocol revision patcht

>
> > > > Comments? I am willing to change it.
> > >
> > > An int 4 atttypmod should be fine. A bit of overhead perhaps, but
> > > who quibles about a few bytes these days? And, perhaps there is a
> > > use.
> > Yea, no one commented, so it stays an int2 until someone finds a type
> > that needs more than a two-byte atttypmod. Right now, it fits the
> > need.
>
> Well, I didn't comment because I haven't yet worked out the issues. But
> I'll go with Bruce's and David's inclination that we should shoehorn
> numeric()/decimal() into something like the existing atttypmod field
> rather than trying for "the general solution" which btw isn't obvious
> how to do.
>
> However, I don't think that 16 bits vs 32 bits is an issue at all
> performance-wise, and I'd to see atttypmod go to 32 bits just to give a
> little breathing room. I'm already using int32 to send attypmod to the
> new char/varchar sizing functions.

OK, I can change it, but it is not easy. Will take time.

>
> Can we go to int32 on atttypmod? I'll try to break it up into two
> sub-fields to implement numeric().
>
> btw, anyone know of a package for variable- and large-precision
> numerics? I have looked at the GNU gmp package, but it looks to me that
> it probably won't fit into the db backend without lots of overhead. Will
> probably try to use the int64 package in contrib for now...
>
> - Tom
>

--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)