On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 11:35 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> writes: > > I like the fact that this patch does not modify the numeric ADT. It > > still relies on the fact that the numeric type will never make use of > > the minimal varlena struct, however. I bring this up in case someone > > sees it as a problem. > > I'm pretty certain I recall Greg Stark recommending that we adopt > something like that as the standard numeric representation of zero. > It didn't get done yet, but it might happen someday. >
Then we should use the previous version of the patch here: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1231709713.25019.129.ca...@jdavis Was there any talk of supporting a +/- infinity in numeric? If we did that, it would allow numeric to be supported for btree-gin. Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
