Brendan Jurd <dire...@gmail.com> writes: > 2009/8/3 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: >> Uh, no, we had better support more. The actual limit of the current >> numeric format is 1e+131072.
> Given your comment above I'm thinking it reasonable to use an int32 to > store the exponent -- will that be safe? Seems reasonable to me. > That would allow for a maximum of 10 exponent digits. As an aside, I > note that int4out() hardcodes the maximum number of digits rather than > exposing a constant (c.f. MAXINT8LEN in int8.c). I'm considering > adding MAXINT2LEN and MAXINT4LEN to int.c in passing. Excessive > tinkering, or worthy improvement? Don't really care. short and int are the same sizes on all platforms of interest, and are likely to remain so --- if they don't, we'll have way more places to fix than this one. INT8 has historically been more platform-dependent. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers