Brendan Jurd <dire...@gmail.com> writes:
> 2009/8/3 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
>> Uh, no, we had better support more. The actual limit of the current
>> numeric format is 1e+131072.
> Given your comment above I'm thinking it reasonable to use an int32 to
> store the exponent -- will that be safe?
Seems reasonable to me.
> That would allow for a maximum of 10 exponent digits. As an aside, I
> note that int4out() hardcodes the maximum number of digits rather than
> exposing a constant (c.f. MAXINT8LEN in int8.c). I'm considering
> adding MAXINT2LEN and MAXINT4LEN to int.c in passing. Excessive
> tinkering, or worthy improvement?
Don't really care. short and int are the same sizes on all platforms of
interest, and are likely to remain so --- if they don't, we'll have way
more places to fix than this one. INT8 has historically been more
platform-dependent.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
