On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 02:31:44 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Dennis Bjorklund <db@zigo.dhs.org> writes:
> > Tom Lane skrev:
> >> Whether it is actually ever going to disappear is not agreed upon.
>
> > What is the reason to keep it?
>
> The words-of-one-syllable answer is that D'Arcy Cain is still willing
> to put work into supporting the money type, and if it still gets the
> job done for him then it probably gets the job done for some other
> people too.
My testing suggests that the money type is faster for certain tasks
involving internal calculations usually and slower on others such as
I/O. In fact I would like to find out what NUMERIC does to get its
speed and see if MONEY can use that.
> So I'm not feeling inclined to try to prescribe that datatype X is
> good while datatype Y is bad. It's more about whether there's an
> audience for any particular datatype definition. The present money
> code gets the job done for D'Arcy and probably some other people,
> and we see some straightforward ways to improve it to serve some
> more cases, so what's wrong with pursuing that path?
I still get the odd message from people telling me that they hope it
stays in. I suspect that the main reason that more people don't use it
is that we keep saying that it is going away. Perhaps we should either
put forward an actual schedule for removing it or stop telling people
that it is deprecated.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@druid.net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
