Andreas Pflug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> In any case, no capability is lost, unlike the original proposal; and >> this would be much less invasive than the original patch since there's >> no need to play tricks with the content of the digit array.
> I wonder if the currently waiting patch isn't Good Enough for > 999.9999999999999999 % of use cases, and "all" others can use numeric > instead of numeric(1000,800) or so. Apparently you misunderstand that patch: it takes capability away from unconstrained numeric too. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly