Re: AW: [HACKERS] Re: [QUESTIONS] money or dollar type

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Bruce Momjian
Тема Re: AW: [HACKERS] Re: [QUESTIONS] money or dollar type
Дата
Msg-id 199805121701.NAA02008@candle.pha.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: AW: [HACKERS] Re: [QUESTIONS] money or dollar type  ("Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>)
Список pgsql-hackers
>
> >> I've just finished working on the type
> >> conversion algorithms so understand the current "atttypmod" field a
> >> bit better, but have not decided how to extend it to multiple fields.
> > divide it into two 16 bit integers ?
>
> At the moment it already _is_ a 16 bit integer, so it would have to be
> divided into two 8 bit integers. Still OK, but then it must be a
> positive number, so one field can be only 7 bits. I was thinking of
> trying to solve the problem generally so that a type definition can also
> define a "type support type" similar to the current atttypmod, but which
> could be single or multiple numbers, or a string, or...

use unsigned short, that is 8 bits.

>
> Don't know if it would be generally useful though; still thinking about
> how to implement different character sets and collation sequences for
> strings and it seems like this might help.
>
> > A mathematical package exists for infinite scale decimals, I think
> > it was part of a 56 bit RSA cracking effort. It has all thinkable
> > operations defined...
>
> Well, if you find it again let us know ;) In the meantime, the 64-bit
> integers are probably the best candidate implementation.

Yes, the 64-bit idea is good.

--
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Bruce Momjian
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: AW: [HACKERS] Re: [QUESTIONS] money or dollar type
Следующее
От: Bruce Momjian
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] Try again: S_LOCK reduced contentionh]