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

Re: New version of money type

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
Cc: "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com, sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: New version of money type
Date: 2006-09-29 04:07:58
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Jim C. Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> writes:
> I think it's also important to protect for the possibility of a more
> complete (and probably incompatible) type in the future, such as one
> that stores what currency a value is in.

Well, such a type could be called "currency", "cash", "forex" or several
other possibilities, so I don't see any particular argument that "money"
has to be removed before something better can exist.  The tightrope that
D'Arcy has to walk is different: improving "money" without making it so
incompatible as to break existing apps that use it.

> Hrm... does ANSI say anything about money types?


			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: ITAGAKI TakahiroDate: 2006-09-29 04:15:06
Subject: Re: Another idea for dealing with cmin/cmax
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-09-29 03:57:12
Subject: Re: Stored procedure array limits

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