Re: Reducing the overhead of NUMERIC data

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Reducing the overhead of NUMERIC data
Date: 2005-11-09 22:42:32
Message-ID: 20182.1131576152@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, 2005-11-06 at 11:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Really? After I woke up a bit more I realized there was only one bit
>> and change to spare, not two, so I don't see how it would work.

> Not sure why you think that. Seems to fit....

[ counts on fingers and toes too ... ] Obviously, I was more awake the
first time. Never mind :-(

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2005-11-09 23:28:14 Re: Install issue on Windows and directory
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2005-11-09 22:24:04 Re: Reducing the overhead of NUMERIC data

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2005-11-10 05:58:51 Re: return can contains any row or record functions
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2005-11-09 22:24:04 Re: Reducing the overhead of NUMERIC data