| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Mertens <dave(at)redbull(dot)zyprexia(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Format of the Money field |
| Date: | 2001-02-05 15:14:42 |
| Message-ID: | 3A7EC362.32CDDA07@alumni.caltech.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> IMHO use numeric and some formatting routine is good idea (better than
> current money datetype..)
The "money" type implementation was a workaround/hack to make up for the
lack of a "numeric" type. I've always assumed that it would be removed
as soon as numeric was available and fast enough to meet the needs. At
the moment "money" uses a 32-bit integer for its implementation, which
is not adequate for most large financial applications.
At some point we might want to repackage "money" as a thin wrapper over
"numeric" which adds currency symbols etc.
- Thomas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Culley Harrelson | 2001-02-05 15:22:49 | full text searching |
| Previous Message | Mathieu Dube | 2001-02-05 15:11:21 | 1024 limit?? |