Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> So we are really decreasing the specified precision from 1000 to 508,
> and the computational precision from 4096 to 508.

The internal computational precision isn't any less, the limit is only
on the result of a function (ie, partial results within one of the
numeric.c routines could still exceed 10^508).  Not sure how much that
distinction matters though.

> Is there any plan to
> fix the silent overflow problem?  Is that in the patch?  I don't see it.

It will get fixed before application ;-)

I haven't reviewed the patch yet; I think the gating factor at this
point is whether anyone protests losing dynamic range in NUMERIC,
and we ought to go ahead and ask that.  After that we can look at the
code more closely.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: Numeric 508 datatype at 2005-12-02 17:17:14 from Bruce Momjian

Responses

• Re: Numeric 508 datatype at 2005-12-02 18:03:26 from Bruce Momjian

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2005-12-02 18:03:26
	Subject: Re: Numeric 508 datatype
Previous:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2005-12-02 17:39:11
	Subject: Reduce NUMERIC size by 2 bytes, reduce max length to 508 digits

pgsql-patches by date

Next:	From: Julio César Elizondo	Date: 2005-12-02 17:50:29
	Subject: unsuscribe patches
Previous:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2005-12-02 17:39:11
	Subject: Reduce NUMERIC size by 2 bytes, reduce max length to 508 digits

pgsql-general by date

Next:	From: Toni Casueps	Date: 2005-12-02 17:44:36
	Subject: accessing text of the query in a rule
Previous:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2005-12-02 17:39:11
	Subject: Reduce NUMERIC size by 2 bytes, reduce max length to 508 digits