On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> The smallest value for precision which requires 2 numeric_digits is >>> always 2; and the required number of numeric_digits increases by 1 >>> each time the number of base-10 digits increases by DEC_DIGITS. > >> And here is a patch implementing that. > > Looks good to me. > > One thought --- to make this look more like the typmod-whacking in > the numeric() function, perhaps the first line of numeric_maximum_size > ought to be > > if (typemod <= (int32) (VARHDRSZ)) > return -1; > > I think the author of numeric() was concerned that VARHDRSZ might be > unsigned, in which case the cast-less comparison would do the Wrong > Thing. Reference to c.h shows that it's signed, so no bug, but having > the cast in the comparison seems like good conservative programming. > > Or, if you prefer, you can take out the cast in numeric(). I merely > opine that the two bits of code should match.
*scratches head* One of those tests uses < and the other uses <= Which one is wrong? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
