On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 11:35 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes:
> > I like the fact that this patch does not modify the numeric ADT. It
> > still relies on the fact that the numeric type will never make use of
> > the minimal varlena struct, however. I bring this up in case someone
> > sees it as a problem.
>
> I'm pretty certain I recall Greg Stark recommending that we adopt
> something like that as the standard numeric representation of zero.
> It didn't get done yet, but it might happen someday.
>
Then we should use the previous version of the patch here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1231709713.25019.129.camel@jdavis
Was there any talk of supporting a +/- infinity in numeric? If we did
that, it would allow numeric to be supported for btree-gin.
Regards,Jeff Davis
