Tom Lane wrote:
> "John D. Burger" <john@mitre.org> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Hm ... between that, the possible crypto connection, and John's
> >> personal testimony
>
> > Just to be clear, this John has yet to use NUMERIC for any
> > calculations, let alone in that range.
>
> My mistake, got confused as to who had said what.
>
> The point remains though: in discussing this proposed patch, we were
> assuming that 10^508 would still be far beyond what people actually
> needed. Even one or two reports from the list membership of actual
> use of larger values casts a pretty big shadow on that assumption.
Agreed. I would like to see us hit the big savings first, like merging
cmin/cmax (4 bytes per row) and reducing the varlena header size (2-3
bytes for short values), before we start going after disk savings that
actually limit our capabilites.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
