Re: [HACKERS] The question about the type numeric

district, Jinan Shandong, China(Head Office) Tel:+86-0531-55701530 Fax:+86-0531-55701544 Website：www.highgo.com Mobile：18766416137 发件人：David G Johnston david.g.johns...@gmail.com 发送时间：2014-04-16 10:23 主题：Re: [HACKERS] The question about the type numeric 收件人：pgsql-hackerspgsql-hackers@postgresql.org 抄

Re: [HACKERS] The question about the type numeric

But the sign is 0. So is there anything wrong? have look in src/backend/utils/adt/numeric.c @ 154 155 for POS NEG defination given as 154 #define NUMERIC_POS 0x 155 #define NUMERIC_NEG 0x4000 Regards, Amul Sul -- View this message in context:

Re: [HACKERS] The question about the type numeric

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:37 AM, sure.postgres sure.postg...@gmail.com wrote: Hi hackers, I am learning about numeric . The comment of NumericShort format is: * In the NumericShort format, the remaining 14 bits of the header word * (n_short.n_header) are allocated as follows: 1 for sign

Re: [HACKERS] The question about the type numeric

sure.postgres wrote Hi hackers, I am learning about numeric . The comment of NumericShort format is: * In the NumericShort format, the remaining 14 bits of the header word * (n_short.n_header) are allocated as follows: 1 for sign (positive or * negative), 6 for dynamic scale, and 7 for