Re: New version of money type

From: tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Xiaofeng Zhao <xf10036(at)hotmail(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net>, llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com, sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: New version of money type
Date: 2006-10-01 04:41:39
Message-ID: 20061001044139.GB11842@www.trapp.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 01:00:05PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
[...]
> Oh BTW: 10^14 is not enough dynamic range --- those guys push around
> *serious* amounts of money. Bill Gates' net wealth is somewhere north
> of 10^13 cents, and he's just a private citizen not a bank.

I do agree that a range in the 10^14 is too small. Even 10^16 seems to
be uncomfortably near to existing values. And thensome like to do things
with (decimal) sub-cent accuracy (think percents and prices per weight
unit). May be 64 bit is just not enough for a tagged money type?

Regards
- -- tomas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFH0cDBcgs9XrR2kYRAhBfAJ9xvi1z8N73VpoiPSczZCUgBENKrgCdHGOd
fEY52y+um4jgW1oUkb8YQ64=
=0UGx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-10-01 04:52:40 Re: Still need GUC update_process_title?
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2006-10-01 02:17:54 Re: libedit broke in head