On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Thomas Munro > <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 5:38 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I feel like these would logically just be different types, like int4 >>> and int8 are. We don't have integer(9) and integer(18). >> >> Hmm. Perhaps format_type.c could render decfloat16 as decfloat(16) >> and decfloat34 as decfloat(34), and gram.y could have a production >> that selects the right one when you write DECFLOAT(x) and rejects >> values of x other than 16 and 34. > > What would be the point of that?
We'd accept and display the new SQL:2016 standard type name with length, but by mapping it onto different internal types we could use a pass-by-value type when it fits in a Datum. -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers