On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Andrew Gierth <and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk> wrote: > (This does rather suggest to me that some better regression tests for > sorting would be a good idea, possibly even including on-disk sorts.)
Yeah. I've been unpleasantly surprised by how easy it is to pass the regression tests with sorting broken. > >> If you're determined to go this route - over my protest - then you > >> need to do something like define a NumericAbbrevGetDatum(x) macro > >> and use it in place of the Int64GetDatum / Int32GetDatum ones for > >> both NAN and the return from numeric_abbrev_convert_var. > > Robert> Patch for that attached. > > That looks reasonable, though I think it could do with a comment > explaining _why_ it's defining its own macros rather than using > Int32*/Int64*. (And I wrote that before seeing Tom's message, even.) Agreed. I have added that and committed this. -- 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
