Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Thomas Munro
> <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> I speculate that decNumber in-tree would be the path of least
>> resistance (assuming the "ICU 1.8.1 and later" license[4] would be
>> acceptable -- to my untrained eye it looks rather BSD-ish -- and
>> 20kloc isn't viewed as excessive), and further that a standard
>> compliant version might have some good reasons to be in core rather
>> than in an extension like pgdecimal:
> We should have a very compelling reason for increasing the number of
> such hassles -- and, for me, this feature would not clear that bar.
It would be interesting to get some handle on the performance differences
between decNumber and our existing NUMERIC implementation. I'm a little
skeptical that they'd be so enormous as to make this an interesting
project, but I could be wrong.
Obviously, the answer could be very different when considering a
mostly-hardware implementation. But until those are fairly readily
available, it's hard to believe very many people will be excited.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
