From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu (Thomas G(dot) Lockhart) |
Cc: | andreas(dot)zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: AW: [HACKERS] Re: [QUESTIONS] money or dollar type |
Date: | 1998-05-12 17:01:29 |
Message-ID: | 199805121701.NAA02008@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> >> I've just finished working on the type
> >> conversion algorithms so understand the current "atttypmod" field a
> >> bit better, but have not decided how to extend it to multiple fields.
> > divide it into two 16 bit integers ?
>
> At the moment it already _is_ a 16 bit integer, so it would have to be
> divided into two 8 bit integers. Still OK, but then it must be a
> positive number, so one field can be only 7 bits. I was thinking of
> trying to solve the problem generally so that a type definition can also
> define a "type support type" similar to the current atttypmod, but which
> could be single or multiple numbers, or a string, or...
use unsigned short, that is 8 bits.
>
> Don't know if it would be generally useful though; still thinking about
> how to implement different character sets and collation sequences for
> strings and it seems like this might help.
>
> > A mathematical package exists for infinite scale decimals, I think
> > it was part of a 56 bit RSA cracking effort. It has all thinkable
> > operations defined...
>
> Well, if you find it again let us know ;) In the meantime, the 64-bit
> integers are probably the best candidate implementation.
Yes, the 64-bit idea is good.
--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-05-12 17:39:22 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] Try again: S_LOCK reduced contentionh] |
Previous Message | Byron Nikolaidis | 1998-05-12 17:00:47 | Re: [INTERFACES] MS Access & PsqlODBC: Invalid field name 'name' |