Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > I read most of these messages rather as advocating the use of > NUMERIC. Yeah, I did advocate that at first, but became convinced float8 was more appropriate. > Also, the multiplication problem can be addressed by adding a > money * numeric operator. True. If we added money * numeric, then it would make more sense to have money / money return numeric. On the other hand, I couldn't come up with enough use cases for that to feel that it justified the performance hit on money / money for typical use cases -- you normally want a ratio for things where float8 is more than sufficient; and you can always cast the arguments to numeric for calculations where the approximate result isn't good enough. Basically, once we agreed to include casts to and from numeric, it seemed to me we had it covered. We're certainly in much better shape to handle exact calculations now that we have the casts than we were before. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
