On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 16:56 +0200, Andreas Pflug wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > The objections to applying this patch originally were:
> > 2. it would restrict number of digits to 508 and there are allegedly
> > some people that want to store > 508 digits.
> >
> If 508 digits are not enough, are1000 digits be sufficient? Both limits
> appear quite arbitrary to me.
Thats the current limit; I agree, but I didn't choose it. IIRC if you
don't specify a limit then you can have arbitrarily long numbers.
-- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com