Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > Tom Lane writes:
> > #define NUMERIC_MAX_PRECISION 1000
> >>
> >> I was thinking just the other day that there's no reason for that
> >> limit to be so low. Jan, couldn't we bump it up to 8 or 16K or so?
>
> > Why have an arbitrary limit at all? Set it to INT_MAX,
>
> The hard limit is certainly no more than 64K, since we store these
> numbers in half of an atttypmod. In practice I suspect the limit may
> be less; Jan would be more likely to remember...
It is arbitrary of course. I don't recall completely, have to dig into the code, but there might be some side
effect when mucking with it.
The NUMERIC code increases the actual internal precision when doing multiply and divide, what happens a
gazillion times when doing higher functions like trigonometry. I think there was some connection between the max
precision and how high this internal precision can grow, so increasing the precision might affect the
computational performance of such higher functions significantly.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
