<div dir="ltr">On 12 June 2013 00:56, Craig Ringer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:craig@2ndquadrant.com"
target="_blank">craig@2ndquadrant.com</a>></span>wrote:<br /><div class="gmail_extra"><div
class="gmail_quote"><blockquoteclass="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div
bgcolor="#FFFFFF"text="#000000">The main thing I'm wondering is how/if to handle backward compatibility with the
existingNUMERIC and its DECIMAL alias, or whether adding new DECIMAL32, DECIMAL64, and DECIMAL128 types would be more
appropriate.I'd love to just use the SQL standard types name DECIMAL if possible, and the standard would allow for it
(seebelow), but backward compat would be a challenge, as would coming up with a sensible transparent promotion scheme
from32->64->128->numeric and ways to stop undesired promotion.<br /></div></blockquote><div style="style"><br
/>Forwhat it's worth, DB2 9.5 and later call these types DECFLOAT(16) and DECFLOAT(34), and they are distinct from
DECIMAL/NUMERIC. <br /><br /><a
href="http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/data/library/techarticle/dm-0801chainani/">http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/data/library/techarticle/dm-0801chainani/</a><br
/></div></div></div></div>
