| From: | Guy Rouillier <guyr-ml1(at)burntmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: How useful is the money datatype? |
| Date: | 2009-10-05 23:42:05 |
| Message-ID: | 4ACA844D.3020600@burntmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Guy Rouillier wrote:
>> Christophe Pettus wrote:
>>> On Oct 4, 2009, at 7:09 PM, Guy Rouillier wrote:
>>>> There is no reason why PG could not support packed decimal.
>>> Is that not NUMERIC?
>> No, that is not NUMERIC. All numeric types are stored as binary
>> representations. Packed decimal is not. Perhaps an example would
>> clarify. The number 1234 would be represented as follows:
>
> I think you are wrong. The Postgres documentation say:
You are correct, I am wrong, as private emails also pointed out. I
should read more carefully. This list is rapidly self-correcting ;).
Thanks.
The IBM implementation provided language libraries (usually COBOL) that
also supported packed decimal, so precision was maintained throughout
the entire application stack.
--
Guy Rouillier
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John R Pierce | 2009-10-06 00:25:55 | Re: How useful is the money datatype? |
| Previous Message | Bill Todd | 2009-10-05 23:14:42 | Re: Version upgrade with tablespace |