Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> writes: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I think we could fix the immediate issue by redeclaring numeric >> headers as arrays of (u)int16 rather than structs. I'm not >> very excited about the packed-header case.
> That would require giving up the pretense that the code supports base > 10 and base 100 I suppose. No, not really. If we redefine NumericVar as a uint16 array, then we'd have n_header or n_sign_dscale as array, n_weight as (int16) array, and n_data as (NumericDigit *) &array or (NumericDigit *) &array depending. Doesn't matter which way NumericDigit is declared. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers