Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Numeric 508 datatype

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Numeric 508 datatype
Date: 2005-11-17 15:57:33
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
> Hm, so if this patch is applied now, and in 5 months or so somebody 
> implements pg_upgrade, this numeric storage patch would be rolled back?
> OTOH, an upgrade mechanism that's compatible for future 8.3+ versions 
> only seems not too attractive.
With Slony and Replicator I don't really see the need for in place 

Joshua D. Drake

> A solution might be to keep the current numeric implementation under a 
> different name (deprecatednumeric or so), for backward compatibility 
> (this should apply to future storage format changes as well).
> Regards,
> Andreas
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
>       choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
>       match

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-11-17 15:58:30
Subject: Re: CLUSTER and clustered indices
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2005-11-17 15:45:48
Subject: Re: CLUSTER and clustered indices

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Dave PageDate: 2005-11-17 16:02:07
Subject: Re: Numeric 508 datatype
Previous:From: Andreas PflugDate: 2005-11-17 14:49:10
Subject: Re: Numeric 508 datatype

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: codeWarriorDate: 2005-11-17 16:03:57
Subject: Re: Very slow queries on 8.1
Previous:From: codeWarriorDate: 2005-11-17 15:51:19
Subject: Re: Most significant digit number formatting

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group