On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, not committing the patch at all would be even less invasive. > But that's true of any patch, so I don't think being less invasive can > be the prime goal. Of course it's usually better to be less invasive > and get the same benefits, but when being less invasive means getting > fewer benefits, the additional invasiveness has to be weighed against > what you get out of it.
I agree with that principle. But desupporting DEC_DIGITS != 4 as Andrew proposed gives no clue to how it can be worked around should someone want DEC_DIGITS != 4, as was once anticipated. Whereas a simple static assertion gives us that flexibility, with two lines of code, and without either removing or rendering entirely dead considerable swathes of numeric.c. You can argue that the code was dead anyway, but Tom didn't seem to feel that way when he wrote it. Why mess with that? There is no benefit to doing so. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
