| From: | Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "John D(dot) Burger" <john(at)mitre(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reduce NUMERIC size by 2 bytes, reduce max length to 508 |
| Date: | 2005-12-06 05:51:12 |
| Message-ID: | 20051206055112.GA62151@winnie.fuhr.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 11:59:10PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > It looks like the limit would be about factorial(256).
> >
> > The question remains, though, is this computational range good for
> > anything except demos?
>
> I can say that the extended range is good for finding *printf problems. ;-)
Might anybody be calculating permutations or combinations with the
textbook functions that use factorials? Not a show-stopper since
those calculations can be optimized (at least the basic formulas I
know), but somebody might get bit by the change. Maybe the release
notes could mention the new upper limit of factorial().
--
Michael Fuhr
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-06 06:02:40 | Re: Reduce NUMERIC size by 2 bytes, reduce max length to 508 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-06 05:42:05 | Re: [GENERAL] Missing variable "role" in "pg_settings"? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-06 06:02:40 | Re: Reduce NUMERIC size by 2 bytes, reduce max length to 508 |
| Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2005-12-06 05:35:43 | Re: Replication on the backend |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-06 06:02:40 | Re: Reduce NUMERIC size by 2 bytes, reduce max length to 508 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-06 05:29:33 | Re: [PATCHES] snprintf() argument reordering not working |