Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> On-disk is what I'm thinking about. Right now, a NaN's first word is
>> all dscale except the sign bits. You're proposing to change that
>> but I think it's unnecessary to do so.
> *Where* am I proposing this?
Um, your patch has the comment
! * If the high bits of n_scale_dscale are NUMERIC_NAN, the two-byte header
! * format is also used, but the low bits of n_scale_dscale are discarded in
! * this case.
but now that I look a bit more closely, I don't think that's what the
code is doing. You've got the NUMERIC_DSCALE and NUMERIC_WEIGHT access
macros testing specifically for NUMERIC_IS_SHORT, not for high-bit-set
which I think is what I was assuming they'd do. So actually that code
is good as is: a NAN still has the old header format. It's just the
comment that's wrong.
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
