"John D. Burger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm ... between that, the possible crypto connection, and John's
>> personal testimony
> Just to be clear, this John has yet to use NUMERIC for any
> calculations, let alone in that range.
My mistake, got confused as to who had said what.
The point remains though: in discussing this proposed patch, we were
assuming that 10^508 would still be far beyond what people actually
needed. Even one or two reports from the list membership of actual
use of larger values casts a pretty big shadow on that assumption.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
