On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 2:16 PM, John McKown <john.archie.mckown@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 1:23 PM, btober@xxxxxxxxxxxx > <btober@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Speaking generically, I guess maybe MONEY needs to be somewhat like a > TIMESTAMP. At least in PostgreSQL, a TIMESTAMP can contain a TIMEZONE. I > guess a MONEY type should contain a modifier identifying the issuer of the > currency (E.g. U.S. Dollar vs Canadian Dollar vs. Yen vs. Yuan vs. "precious > metal"). ISTM we already have that functionality; composite types. Had the money type been written after we got composite types it might have been done differently (or perhaps not at all). A similar observation can be made against the geometric types. Proper currency conversion of course is a complex topic; it'd be an interesting thought experiment to imagine that functionality inside of a type implementation. The problem with the money type is that it simultaneously somehow does too much and not enough. It kind of lives in twilight as a sneaky fixed point integer implemented in binary. It's a scar from the heady days of youth used to impress people :-). merlin -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
