| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fixed length data types issue |
| Date: | 2006-09-11 20:31:34 |
| Message-ID: | 6140.1158006694@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> No, that got rejected as being too much of a restriction of the dynamic
>> range, eg John's comment here:
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2005-12/msg00246.php
> That logic seems questionable. John makes two points:
> a) crypto applications are within a factor of two of the proposed limitation.
> Firstly, nobody does actual crypto work using Postgres's numeric data type.
> It would be ridiculously slow.
That's utterly irrelevant. The point is that there are standard
applications today in which people need that much precision; therefore,
the argument that "10^508 is far more than anyone could want" is on
exceedingly shaky ground.
Besides, isn't "it's too slow" a bug we'd like to fix someday?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Devrim GUNDUZ | 2006-09-11 20:51:23 | Re: New job |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2006-09-11 20:24:04 | Re: Fixed length data types issue |