Re: Decimal64 and Decimal128

From: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Feng Tian <ftian(at)vitessedata(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Decimal64 and Decimal128
Date: 2015-09-24 22:25:35
Message-ID: 5604785F.7000208@BlueTreble.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 9/24/15 3:35 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I would worry about the implicit casts you've added. They might cause problems.

Given the cycle created between numeric->decimal and decimal->numeric, I
can pretty much guarantee they will. In any case, I don't think implicit
casting from numeric->decimal is a good idea since it can overflow. I'm
not sure that the other direction is safe either... I can't remember
offhand if casting correctly obeys typmod or not.

BTW, have you talked to Pavel about making these changes to his code?
Seems a shame to needlessly fork it. :/
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2015-09-24 22:27:38 Re: 9.3.9 and pg_multixact corruption
Previous Message Jim Nasby 2015-09-24 22:01:18 Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.