On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 9:42 AM Thomas Munro
<thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2015-09-25 0:25 GMT+02:00 Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com>:
> >> On 9/24/15 3:35 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I would worry about the implicit casts you've added. They might cause
> >>> problems.
> >>
> >>
> >> Given the cycle created between numeric->decimal and decimal->numeric, I
> >> can pretty much guarantee they will. In any case, I don't think implicit
> >> casting from numeric->decimal is a good idea since it can overflow. I'm not
> >> sure that the other direction is safe either... I can't remember offhand if
> >> casting correctly obeys typmod or not.
> >>
> >> BTW, have you talked to Pavel about making these changes to his code?
> >> Seems a shame to needlessly fork it. :/
> >
> >
> > yes, he talked with me, and I gave a agreement to continue/enhance/fork this
> > project how will be necessary
>
> Bumping this ancient thread to say that DECFLOAT appears to have
> landed in the SQL standard. I haven't looked at SQL:2016 myself by I
> just saw this on Markus Winand's Modern SQL blog:
... and it has just been voted into the next revision of the C language:
https://gustedt.wordpress.com/2018/11/12/c2x/
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
