| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | "Andy Balholm" <andy(at)balholm(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: dividing money by money |
| Date: | 2010-07-16 16:21:13 |
| Message-ID: | 17291.1279297273@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> The only way I'd be willing to label those things immutable was if
>> we did something to lock down lc_monetary for the life of a
>> database (ie, make it work more like lc_collate does now). Which
>> might be a good idea, but it's not how it works today.
> Interesting. In general, what is involved in locking something like
> this down for the life of a database?
IIRC, the main pain point is providing an option for CREATE DATABASE
to set the value. If you chase down all the references to lc_collate
you'll get the picture.
It'd probably be worth doing if money were less deprecated, but right
now I can't get excited about it.
Actually ... the thing that might turn money into a less deprecated type
is if you could set lc_monetary per column. I wonder whether Peter's
collation hack could be extended to deal with that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-07-16 16:24:19 | Re: SHOW TABLES |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-07-16 16:16:32 | Re: SHOW TABLES |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-07-17 10:18:50 | Re: dividing money by money |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-07-16 15:11:35 | Re: dividing money by money |