Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2014-01-16 14:23:47 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Dunno, I think that a transition state containing both an int64 and
>> a (presumably separately palloc'd) numeric will be a real PITA.
> Yea, not sure myself. I just dislike the idea of having a good part of a
> 128bit math implementation for a single transition function.
Not sure how you figure that we need very much new code beyond the
overflow test.
> Well, you don't need to check the second variable for lots of
> operations. Say, the current sum is 0 and you add a -1. With the two
> variables scheme that requires checking the second variable,
> manipulating it etc.
I'm envisioning just
state->lowhalf += input;
if (overflowed_up)
state->highhalf++;
else if (overflowed_down)
state->highhalf--;
The only thing that might take a moment's thought, or extra cycles in the
normal case, is extending the overflow test so that it can tell whether
we need to increment or decrement the upper half.
[ thinks a bit... ] Note that I'm supposing that the state is defined
as (highhalf * 2^64) + lowhalf, not that we need the two variables to
be exactly a 128-bit twos-complement value, which is what I think
you're talking about.
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
