From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Numeric 508 datatype |
Date: | 2005-11-17 15:57:33 |
Message-ID: | 437CA86D.4090309@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
>
> Hm, so if this patch is applied now, and in 5 months or so somebody
> implements pg_upgrade, this numeric storage patch would be rolled back?
> OTOH, an upgrade mechanism that's compatible for future 8.3+ versions
> only seems not too attractive.
With Slony and Replicator I don't really see the need for in place
upgrades.
Joshua D. Drake
> A solution might be to keep the current numeric implementation under a
> different name (deprecatednumeric or so), for backward compatibility
> (this should apply to future storage format changes as well).
>
> Regards,
> Andreas
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
> choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
> match
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | codeWarrior | 2005-11-17 16:03:57 | Re: Very slow queries on 8.1 |
Previous Message | codeWarrior | 2005-11-17 15:51:19 | Re: Most significant digit number formatting |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-11-17 15:58:30 | Re: CLUSTER and clustered indices |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-11-17 15:45:48 | Re: CLUSTER and clustered indices |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Page | 2005-11-17 16:02:07 | Re: Numeric 508 datatype |
Previous Message | Andreas Pflug | 2005-11-17 14:49:10 | Re: Numeric 508 datatype |