Thread

1. reducing NUMERIC size for 9.1, take two

   Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2010-07-30T21:58:03Z

   Here's a second version of the main patch, in which I have attempted
   to respond to Tom's concerns/suggestions.
   
   (There is still a small, side issue with numeric_maximum_size() which
   I plan to fix, but this patch is the good stuff.)
   
   -- 
   Robert Haas
   EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
   The Enterprise Postgres Company
   

2. Re: reducing NUMERIC size for 9.1, take two

   Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com> — 2010-08-03T16:58:35Z

   On 31 July 2010 07:58, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
   > Here's a second version of the main patch, in which I have attempted
   > to respond to Tom's concerns/suggestions.
   >
   > (There is still a small, side issue with numeric_maximum_size() which
   > I plan to fix, but this patch is the good stuff.)
   >
   
   Applies fine, compiles fine, passes regression tests, and demonstrates
   the same space reduction seen with the previous version of the patch.
   
   Marking Ready for Committer.
   
   Cheers,
   BJ
   
   

3. Re: reducing NUMERIC size for 9.1, take two

   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2010-08-03T22:03:55Z

   Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
   > Here's a second version of the main patch, in which I have attempted
   > to respond to Tom's concerns/suggestions.
   
   This version looks fine to me.
   
   			regards, tom lane
   
   

4. Re: reducing NUMERIC size for 9.1, take two

   Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2010-08-03T23:12:20Z

   On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
   > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
   >> Here's a second version of the main patch, in which I have attempted
   >> to respond to Tom's concerns/suggestions.
   >
   > This version looks fine to me.
   
   Excellent.  Committed.
   
   -- 
   Robert Haas
   EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
   The Enterprise Postgres Company