Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Guy Rouillier wrote:
>> Christophe Pettus wrote:
>>> On Oct 4, 2009, at 7:09 PM, Guy Rouillier wrote:
>>>> There is no reason why PG could not support packed decimal.
>>> Is that not NUMERIC?
>> No, that is not NUMERIC. All numeric types are stored as binary
>> representations. Packed decimal is not. Perhaps an example would
>> clarify. The number 1234 would be represented as follows:
>
> I think you are wrong. The Postgres documentation say:
You are correct, I am wrong, as private emails also pointed out. I
should read more carefully. This list is rapidly self-correcting ;).
Thanks.
The IBM implementation provided language libraries (usually COBOL) that
also supported packed decimal, so precision was maintained throughout
the entire application stack.
--
Guy Rouillier
