On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Apr 4, 2011, at 1:46 AM, Joseph Adams <joeyadams3.14...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Thanks for the patch, but I think you forgot to worry about overflow: > >>> cash_in doesn't test for overflow, either (tested on 8.4.0, 9.0.3, and >>> HEAD): >>> Is this a bug? > >> Seems like it. You have to feel sorry for the guy who deposits 9 quintillion >> dollars and then gets a note from the bank saying his account is overdrawn... > > I'm fairly sure that *none* of the money operations bother to check for > overflow; not only input, but arithmetic. That falls somewhere between > bug and missing feature. It's probably worth fixing but seems outside > the scope of the current patch.
Oh. Bummer. Yeah, that sounds more like a TODO than an open item. > In the meantime, I'm not sure whether the newly added functions should > be held to a higher standard than the existing ones. It might be better > to leave it be, and plan to fix them all at once in a consistent style. Maybe. The numeric->money cast does handle it though, so there's at least some precedent for checking. If you don't want to worry about it, I'm OK with just putting it in as-is, but I'd probably be inclined to look for a way to fix it if we can do that without adding too much complexity. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
