| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reduce NUMERIC size by 2 bytes, reduce max length to 508 digits |
| Date: | 2005-12-03 16:43:00 |
| Message-ID: | 572.1133628180@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 07:37:49PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So the product I fancifully mentioned would weigh in somewhere around
>> 10^300, and thus be *well* within the capability of even the proposed
>> restricted numeric format.
> I think numbers much bigger than that are only useful for theoretical
> mathemeticians.
There are practical applications, eg, 1024-bit keys are fairly common
objects in cryptography these days, and that equates to about 10^308.
I don't really foresee anyone trying to run crypto algorithms with SQL
NUMERIC arithmetic, though ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Karl O. Pinc | 2005-12-03 17:15:52 | Re: New.* and old.* as function arguments within rules |
| Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2005-12-03 16:01:15 | Re: deadlock detected - when multiple threads try to update |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-03 16:49:05 | Re: Striping CLOG and Subtrans |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-03 16:30:31 | Re: Reducing relation locking overhead |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-12-03 16:46:11 | Re: BUG #2056: to_char no long takes time as input? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-12-03 16:16:03 | Re: [HACKERS] snprintf() argument reordering not working under Windows |