Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <> writes:
> > I am confused by your use of the term "dynamic" range.  From what you
> > say above that we are just moving from 1000 to 508 for storage, and that
> > computational range would still be 4096?
> No, computational range would still be on the order of 10^16G ... in the
> computational format, the weight is an int.  The restriction to 1000
> digits was never anything but an artificial limit.  (Of course, you
> might not have the patience to actually do any arithmetic with that many
> digits, but the point is there was a whole lot of headroom before, and
> now there won't be.)

Sorry, I am confused.  If our computational range is that high, why does
SELECT factorial(4000) and SELECT factorial(6000) produce the same
number of digits on my screen.

  Bruce Momjian                        |               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(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

Reply via email to