On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 04:30:27PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 10:32:03AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I'd feel a lot happier about this if we could keep the dynamic range > >> up to, say, 10^512 so that it's still true that NUMERIC can be a > >> universal parse-time representation. That would also make it even > >> more unlikely that anyone would complain about loss of functionality. > > > Would it be feasable to have a type that satisfies that constraint but > > isn't generally intended for on-disk use? My thought is that this new > > type would be used mostly for casting purposes. Kind of like the > > UNKNOWNNUMBER but easier to do since it'd just be another type. > > What exactly would be easier about it? ISTM you just described > UNKNOWNNUMERIC to a T.
Apologies then; it sounded like UNKNOWNNUMERIC was going to be something that was internal-use only, presumably making it much harder to implement than just adding an additional type. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
