From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Numeric 508 datatype |
Date: | 2005-12-02 16:47:22 |
Message-ID: | 200512021647.jB2GlME10341@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> Now we're into 8.2devel mode, its time to submit the previously
> discussed patch that:
>
> - reduces Numeric storage format by 2 bytes
> - limits scale to +/- 508 decimal places
>
> This is sufficient to allow Numeric to continue to be used as the
> default numeric representation for all numbers in the parser.
>
> Passes: make check on cvstip, as well as some tests not in there.
>
> Code comments explain the new format and consequences.
>
> As previously agreed, reviewing this is a 2 stage process:
> 1. review/possibly agree OK to commit
> 2. check with everybody on GENERAL that the restriction to 508 is
> acceptable
>
> Figure there's no point doing (2) until we agree the proposal/code is
> workable.
OK, seems all objections have been dealt with so it goes into the patch
queue. I will ask on 'general'.
The only downside I see is that I can't impress people by doing:
SELECT factorial(4000);
I don't suppose the _impression_ factor is worth two bytes per value.
Shame.
I suppose people wanting to do such manipulations will have to store the
numbers as text and use a server-side library like perl to do
calculations.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rodrigo Gonzalez | 2005-12-02 16:49:42 | Re: Slow COUNT |
Previous Message | Andrew Schmidt | 2005-12-02 16:01:27 | Re: Slow COUNT |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chris Browne | 2005-12-02 17:14:09 | Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-02 15:42:48 | Re: Optimizer oddness, possibly compounded in 8.1 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chris Browne | 2005-12-02 17:14:09 | Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline? |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-12-02 16:17:02 | Re: Check for integer overflow in datetime functions |