On 12 June 2013 00:56, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > The main thing I'm wondering is how/if to handle backward compatibility > with the existing NUMERIC and its DECIMAL alias, or whether adding new > DECIMAL32, DECIMAL64, and DECIMAL128 types would be more appropriate. I'd > love to just use the SQL standard types name DECIMAL if possible, and the > standard would allow for it (see below), but backward compat would be a > challenge, as would coming up with a sensible transparent promotion scheme > from 32->64->128->numeric and ways to stop undesired promotion. >
For what it's worth, DB2 9.5 and later call these types DECFLOAT(16) and DECFLOAT(34), and they are distinct from DECIMAL/NUMERIC. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/data/library/techarticle/dm-0801chainani/
