Re: [HACKERS] Decimal64 and Decimal128 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Decimal64 and Decimal128
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmob+w6KyFqTv-F6PYsbSk-NxRO_FObtgmmxTA_4h2tPXnA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Decimal64 and Decimal128  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Decimal64 and Decimal128  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Thomas Munro
<thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> 1.  They are fixed size, and DECFLOAT(9) [= 32 bit] and DECFLOAT(17)
> [= 64 bit] could in theory be passed by value.  Of course we don't
> have a way to make those pass-by-value and yet pass DECFLOAT(34) [=
> 128 bit] by reference!  That is where I got stuck last time I was
> interested in this subject, because that seems like the place where we
> would stand to gain a bunch of performance, and yet the limited
> technical factors seems to be very well baked into Postgres.

I feel like these would logically just be different types, like int4
and int8 are.  We don't have integer(9) and integer(18).

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Devrim Gündüz
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] how are the rpms configured that are available inPostgreSQL RPM Building Project - Yum Repository
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Preliminary results for proposed new pgindent implementation