Re: Reducing NUMERIC size for 8.3 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Reducing NUMERIC size for 8.3
Date
Msg-id 8683.1182182932@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Reducing NUMERIC size for 8.3  (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: Reducing NUMERIC size for 8.3  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Anything shorter than the shortest possible numeric representation can
> implicitly be interpreted as some alternate compact representation. I already
> had a patch that stored small integers in a single NumericDigit without any
> numeric header at all.

That's getting well beyond the realm of reason IMHO.  I doubt you can
merge it with this proposal anyway --- how will you disambiguate from
zero with a positive dscale ("0.00")?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Tuple alignment
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: GUC time unit spelling a bit inconsistent