Re: Faster NUMERIC implementation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Faster NUMERIC implementation
Date
Msg-id 23017.1048171770@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Faster NUMERIC implementation  (Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org>)
Responses Re: Faster NUMERIC implementation  (Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org> writes:
> But I wonder if we could arrange things so the Numeric stuff wents out
> of the backend.

With suitable #define hacking you could perhaps take care of the code's
dependencies on palloc/pfree ... but elog is harder, and I don't see any
realistic way to handle the backend's function-call conventions as
opposed to conventions that would make sense as a library API.

I don't want to clutter the code by having to support two sets of error
conventions and two APIs.  If you can figure a way around that, great...
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Philip Warner
Date:
Subject: Varchar Vs. Text index matching - why different?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: string || NULL ambiguity