Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes: > Tom Lane escribió: >> Doesn't seem quite right. Should we throw error if the number of 9's >> before the decimal point isn't 1?
> No, see > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4a68fae4.50...@timbira.com Ah, nothing like being bug-compatible with a bad implementation. But I agree, if Oracle ignores the number of 9's there then we should too. BTW, this patch adds more NUM_cache_remove() calls. I'm planning to commit it that way, unless you're just about to commit your PG_TRY change? I agree with doing that, but figured it should be a separate commit. 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
