Re: Reducing NUMERIC size for 8.3

Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Anything shorter than the shortest possible numeric representation can
> implicitly be interpreted as some alternate compact representation. I already
> had a patch that stored small integers in a single NumericDigit without any
> numeric header at all.

That's getting well beyond the realm of reason IMHO.  I doubt you can
merge it with this proposal anyway --- how will you disambiguate from
zero with a positive dscale ("0.00")?
        regards, tom lane