Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hmm, this followup patch is wrong though -- the SQL definition is still > using BIGINT where it should be using double. And the other changes to > use BIGINT where the original values were int4 seem unnecessary.
I'm on this one now ...
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches
