Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> In any case, no capability is lost, unlike the original proposal; and
>> this would be much less invasive than the original patch since there's
>> no need to play tricks with the content of the digit array.
> I wonder if the currently waiting patch isn't Good Enough for
> 999.9999999999999999 % of use cases, and "all" others can use numeric
> instead of numeric(1000,800) or so.
Apparently you misunderstand that patch: it takes capability away from
unconstrained numeric too.
regards, tom lane