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.)

			regards, tom lane

In response to

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

Responses

• Re: Numeric 508 datatype at 2005-12-02 18:42:40 from Bruce Momjian

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2005-12-02 18:23:35
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?
Previous:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2005-12-02 18:03:26
	Subject: Re: Numeric 508 datatype

pgsql-patches by date

Next:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2005-12-02 18:23:35
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?
Previous:	From: Julio César Elizondo	Date: 2005-12-02 18:19:49
	Subject: unsuscribe pgsql-patches

pgsql-general by date

Next:	From: Richard Huxton	Date: 2005-12-02 18:32:55
	Subject: Re: accessing text of the query in a rule
Previous:	From: Gary Horton	Date: 2005-12-02 18:08:40
	Subject: createuser ignores stdin in 8.1.0?