Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Numeric 508 datatype

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Numeric 508 datatype
Date: 2005-11-17 14:26:14
Message-ID: 25725.1132237574@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> writes:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Now we're into 8.2devel mode, its time to submit the previously
>> discussed patch that:
>> - reduces Numeric storage format by 2 bytes

> This makes the often discussed binary upgrade impossible, so I wonder if 
> two bytes savings are worth the trouble.

Unless someone actually steps forward and produces a working pg_upgrade
in the 8.2 timeframe, this objection is moot.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-11-17 14:34:08
Subject: Re: tablespaces and non-empty directories
Previous:From: Jaime CasanovaDate: 2005-11-17 14:17:15
Subject: Re: Optional postgres database not so optional in 8.1

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Andreas PflugDate: 2005-11-17 14:49:10
Subject: Re: Numeric 508 datatype
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2005-11-17 14:04:42
Subject: Re: drop if exists

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Andreas PflugDate: 2005-11-17 14:49:10
Subject: Re: Numeric 508 datatype
Previous:From: Bill MoseleyDate: 2005-11-17 14:06:53
Subject: Re: Wrong rows selected with view

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group