Re: Faster NUMERIC implementation

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Faster NUMERIC implementation
Date: 2003-03-20 14:49:30
Message-ID: 23017.1048171770@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> But I wonder if we could arrange things so the Numeric stuff wents out
> of the backend.

With suitable #define hacking you could perhaps take care of the code's
dependencies on palloc/pfree ... but elog is harder, and I don't see any
realistic way to handle the backend's function-call conventions as
opposed to conventions that would make sense as a library API.

I don't want to clutter the code by having to support two sets of error
conventions and two APIs. If you can figure a way around that, great...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-03-20 14:55:03 Re: string || NULL ambiguity
Previous Message Philip Warner 2003-03-20 13:20:15 Varchar Vs. Text index matching - why different?