Bruce Momjian wrote:
Guy Rouillier wrote:
Christophe Pettus wrote:
On Oct 4, 2009, at 7:09 PM, Guy Rouillier wrote:
There is no reason why PG could not support packed decimal.
Is that not NUMERIC?
No, that is not NUMERIC. All numeric types are stored as binary
representations. Packed decimal is not. Perhaps an example would
clarify. The number 1234 would be represented as follows:
I think you are wrong. The Postgres documentation say:
You are correct, I am wrong, as private emails also pointed out. I
should read more carefully. This list is rapidly self-correcting ;).
Thanks.
The IBM implementation provided language libraries (usually COBOL) that
also supported packed decimal, so precision was maintained throughout
the entire application stack.
--
Guy Rouillier
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
