Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > I am confused by your use of the term "dynamic" range.  From what you
> > say above that we are just moving from 1000 to 508 for storage, and that
> > computational range would still be 4096?
> 
> No, computational range would still be on the order of 10^16G ... in the
> computational format, the weight is an int.  The restriction to 1000
> digits was never anything but an artificial limit.  (Of course, you
> might not have the patience to actually do any arithmetic with that many
> digits, but the point is there was a whole lot of headroom before, and
> now there won't be.)

Sorry, I am confused.  If our computational range is that high, why does
SELECT factorial(4000) and SELECT factorial(6000) produce the same
number of digits on my screen.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

• Re: Numeric 508 datatype at 2005-12-02 18:21:05 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: Numeric 508 datatype at 2005-12-02 18:54:33 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2005-12-02 18:47:18
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?
Previous:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2005-12-02 18:39:00
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

pgsql-patches by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2005-12-02 18:47:18
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?
Previous:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2005-12-02 18:39:00
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

pgsql-general by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2005-12-02 18:54:33
	Subject: Re: Numeric 508 datatype
Previous:	From: Richard Huxton	Date: 2005-12-02 18:36:37
	Subject: Re: createuser ignores stdin in 8.1.0?