Re: Decimal64 and Decimal128

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Thomas Munro
> <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> I speculate that decNumber in-tree would be the path of least
>> resistance (assuming the "ICU 1.8.1 and later" license[4] would be
>> acceptable -- to my untrained eye it looks rather BSD-ish -- and
>> 20kloc isn't viewed as excessive), and further that a standard
>> compliant version might have some good reasons to be in core rather
>> than in an extension like pgdecimal:

> We should have a very compelling reason for increasing the number of
> such hassles -- and, for me, this feature would not clear that bar.

It would be interesting to get some handle on the performance differences
between decNumber and our existing NUMERIC implementation. I'm a little
skeptical that they'd be so enormous as to make this an interesting
project, but I could be wrong.

Obviously, the answer could be very different when considering a
mostly-hardware implementation. But until those are fairly readily
available, it's hard to believe very many people will be excited.

regards, tom lane