Horton

Thread

  1. Money type not gone?

    Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> — 2004-09-17T17:34:23Z

    Guys,

Pardon me if this is redundant, but I've just noticed that the MONEY type 
still exists in 8.0b2.    Didn't we say that we were getting rid of it?

-- 
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

  2. Re: Money type not gone?

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2004-09-19T19:29:28Z

    Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> Pardon me if this is redundant, but I've just noticed that the MONEY type 
> still exists in 8.0b2.    Didn't we say that we were getting rid of it?

No, we never actually said we would get rid of it, and certainly not on
any particular timetable.  I think the only real consensus is that no
one likes the current integer-based implementation.  Whether to remove
it or rewrite it is still a matter in dispute.

			regards, tom lane

  3. Re: Money type not gone?

    Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> — 2004-09-20T00:07:16Z

    Tom,

> No, we never actually said we would get rid of it, and certainly not on
> any particular timetable.  I think the only real consensus is that no
> one likes the current integer-based implementation.  Whether to remove
> it or rewrite it is still a matter in dispute.

My vote is get rid of it and replace it with a DOMAIN of NUMERIC.

-- 
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

  4. Re: Money type not gone?

    Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2004-09-20T06:18:23Z

    Josh Berkus wrote:
> My vote is get rid of it and replace it with a DOMAIN of NUMERIC.

How would that domain be defined?

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

  5. Re: Money type not gone?

    Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz> — 2004-09-20T08:25:24Z

    On Sun, 2004-09-19 at 15:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> > Pardon me if this is redundant, but I've just noticed that the MONEY type 
> > still exists in 8.0b2.    Didn't we say that we were getting rid of it?
> 
> No, we never actually said we would get rid of it, and certainly not on
> any particular timetable.  I think the only real consensus is that no
> one likes the current integer-based implementation.  Whether to remove
> it or rewrite it is still a matter in dispute.

 I want to rewrite it for 8.1 as numeric based datetype with some
formatting extension probably with some internal stuff from to_char()
familly.

	Karel

-- 
Karel Zak
http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr/

  6. Re: Money type not gone?

    Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> — 2004-09-20T08:36:27Z

    Karel Zak wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-09-19 at 15:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 

>  I want to rewrite it for 8.1 as numeric based datetype with some
> formatting extension probably with some internal stuff from to_char()
> familly.

How about a type that is also able to hold an ISO currency identifier?
After a long period of work on multi currency applications, I found out 
that adding 1 USD and 1 EUR won't give a good result...

Regards,
Andreas

  7. Re: Money type not gone?

    Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz> — 2004-09-20T09:42:34Z

    On Mon, 2004-09-20 at 08:36 +0000, Andreas Pflug wrote:
> Karel Zak wrote:
> > On Sun, 2004-09-19 at 15:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > 
> 
> >  I want to rewrite it for 8.1 as numeric based datetype with some
> > formatting extension probably with some internal stuff from to_char()
> > familly.
> 
> How about a type that is also able to hold an ISO currency identifier?

My idea is special internal API that will usable for new datetypes
programming if type is defined as "numeric + symbol", for example things
like speed, weight, currency.. etc.

	Karel

-- 
Karel Zak
http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr/

  8. Re: Money type not gone?

    Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> — 2004-09-20T10:04:51Z

    Karel Zak wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-09-20 at 08:36 +0000, Andreas Pflug wrote:
> 
>>Karel Zak wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 2004-09-19 at 15:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> I want to rewrite it for 8.1 as numeric based datetype with some
>>>formatting extension probably with some internal stuff from to_char()
>>>familly.
>>
>>How about a type that is also able to hold an ISO currency identifier?
> 
> 
> My idea is special internal API that will usable for new datetypes
> programming if type is defined as "numeric + symbol", for example things
> like speed, weight, currency.. etc.

A type consisting of value and unit probably makes pgsql even more first 
choice for technical applications. Please note that %, k, M and so on 
are scales, not units and thus dont belong into that type.

Regards,
Andreas

  9. Re: Money type not gone?

    Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> — 2004-09-21T17:42:49Z

    Karel, Andreas,

> > My idea is special internal API that will usable for new datetypes
> > programming if type is defined as "numeric + symbol", for example things
> > like speed, weight, currency.. etc.
>
> A type consisting of value and unit probably makes pgsql even more first
> choice for technical applications. Please note that %, k, M and so on
> are scales, not units and thus dont belong into that type.

The difference with currency would be the lack of a fixed conversion for 
different units.    For example, you can:

10m == 1000cm
7l == 0.07m^3

But you can't reasonably:

10USD == 6.25UKL

... because that would require a query to money.yahoo.com to establish.  

-- 
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

  10. Re: Money type not gone?

    Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> — 2004-09-21T18:29:56Z

    Josh Berkus wrote:
> 
> The difference with currency would be the lack of a fixed conversion for 
> different units.    For example, you can:

You're mixing up quite a lot of stuff here.

> 10m == 1000cm

This is just what I considered forbidden to be included in that "unit-ed 
type" in my previous mail. c = centi is a scale, which is up to a view 
conversion, and should not be stored. It would be a pain to calculate 
with it.


> 7l == 0.07m^3

l is not a SI unit, m^3 is. See below for further handling

> But you can't reasonably:
> 
> 10USD == 6.25UKL

Yes, right. USD and UKL are different units, and units are generally not 
convertible. If you want one from the other, you always have to multiply 
it by something that adapts the units. 1kg = .001m^3 is never true, it 
needs 1000kg/m^3 as factor for water. Unfortunately, for currencies this 
isn't fixed (it isn't fixed for water either).

l is an abbrevation for .001m^3. If you'd really decide to handle it as 
unit in the "unit-ed type", it wouldn't be convertible either. Since in 
real life l and m^3 are rarely used interchanged on a specific item, 
this seems acceptable.


> ... because that would require a query to money.yahoo.com to establish.  

It's even more complicated. In practice, real time rates of exchanges 
are much less frequent than point in time rates.

Regards,
Andreas