On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > While at it:
These words always make me a bit frightened when reviewing a patch, since it's generally simpler if a single patch only does one thing. However, in this case... > * I remove the outdated > -- NOTE: int[24] operators never check for over/underflow! > -- Some of these answers are consequently numerically incorrect. > warnings in the regressions tests. ...this part looks obviously OK, so I have committed it. The rest is attached as a residual patch, except that I reverted this change: > * I renamed pg_[il]toa to pg_s(16|32|64)toa - I found the names confusing. Not > sure if its worth it. I notice that int8out isn't terribly consistent with int2out and int4out, in that it does an extra copy. Maybe that's justified given the greater potential memory wastage, but I'm not certain. One approach might be to pick some threshold value and allocate a buffer in one of two sizes based on how large the value is relative to that cutoff. But that might also be a stupid idea, not sure. It would speed things up for me if you or someone else could take a quick pass over what remains here and fix the formatting and whitespace to be consistent with our general project style, and make the comment headers more consistent among the functions being added/modified. I think the new regression tests look good. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
custom-int248-string-conversion-routines.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
