On 2013-06-20 13:45:24 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 06/12/2013 07:51 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2013-06-12 19:47:46 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> >> On 06/12/2013 05:55 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Craig Ringer
> >>> wrote:
> The main thing I'm wonderi
On 20 June 2013 08:05, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On 20 June 2013 06:45, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
>> If the performance isn't interesting it may still be worth adding for
>>
> compliance reasons, but if we can only add IEEE-compliant decimal FP by
>> using non-SQL-standard type names I don't think that'
On 20 June 2013 06:45, Craig Ringer wrote:
> I think a good starting point would be to use the Intel and IBM
> libraries to implement basic DECIMAL32/64/128 to see if they perform
> better than the gcc builtins tested by Pavel by adapting his extension.
>
Just a few notes:
Not sure if this has
On 20 June 2013 06:45, Craig Ringer wrote:
> I think a good starting point would be to use the Intel and IBM
> libraries to implement basic DECIMAL32/64/128 to see if they perform
> better than the gcc builtins tested by Pavel by adapting his extension.
>
> If the performance isn't interesting it
On 06/12/2013 07:51 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-06-12 19:47:46 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> On 06/12/2013 05:55 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Craig Ringer
>>> wrote:
The main thing I'm wondering is how/if to handle backward compatibility
with
On 2013-06-12 19:47:46 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 06/12/2013 05:55 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Craig Ringer
> > wrote:
> >> The main thing I'm wondering is how/if to handle backward compatibility
> >> with
> >> the existing NUMERIC and its DECIMAL alias
> > I
On 06/12/2013 05:55 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> The main thing I'm wondering is how/if to handle backward compatibility with
>> the existing NUMERIC and its DECIMAL alias
> If it were 100% functionally equivalent you could just hide the
> implem
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> The main thing I'm wondering is how/if to handle backward compatibility with
> the existing NUMERIC and its DECIMAL alias
If it were 100% functionally equivalent you could just hide the
implementation internally. Have a bit that indicates wh
