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

> > 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.
> >
> > 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
>
> Int32 is fine with me. Or maybe uint32? Or maybe
>
> union {
> u uint32;
> struct {
> h int16;
> l int16;
> }
> }
>
> Oh no, it is happening again....
>
> Lets just go with uint32.

Can't be unsigned. -1 must be a valid value.

--
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)