Re: Reducing NUMERIC size for 8.3

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Reducing NUMERIC size for 8.3
Date: 2007-06-18 16:08:52
Message-ID: 8683.1182182932@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Anything shorter than the shortest possible numeric representation can
> implicitly be interpreted as some alternate compact representation. I already
> had a patch that stored small integers in a single NumericDigit without any
> numeric header at all.

That's getting well beyond the realm of reason IMHO. I doubt you can
merge it with this proposal anyway --- how will you disambiguate from
zero with a positive dscale ("0.00")?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2007-06-18 16:16:56 Re: GUC time unit spelling a bit inconsistent
Previous Message Gregory Stark 2007-06-18 16:03:22 Re: Reducing NUMERIC size for 8.3