| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Feng Tian <ftian(at)vitessedata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Decimal64 and Decimal128 |
| Date: | 2017-06-17 17:38:29 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob+w6KyFqTv-F6PYsbSk-NxRO_FObtgmmxTA_4h2tPXnA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> 1. They are fixed size, and DECFLOAT(9) [= 32 bit] and DECFLOAT(17)
> [= 64 bit] could in theory be passed by value. Of course we don't
> have a way to make those pass-by-value and yet pass DECFLOAT(34) [=
> 128 bit] by reference! That is where I got stuck last time I was
> interested in this subject, because that seems like the place where we
> would stand to gain a bunch of performance, and yet the limited
> technical factors seems to be very well baked into Postgres.
I feel like these would logically just be different types, like int4
and int8 are. We don't have integer(9) and integer(18).
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-06-17 17:41:28 | Re: Preliminary results for proposed new pgindent implementation |
| Previous Message | Devrim Gündüz | 2017-06-17 16:50:31 | Re: how are the rpms configured that are available in PostgreSQL RPM Building Project - Yum Repository |