On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ali Akbar <the.ap...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> 2014-10-06 22:51 GMT+07:00 Marti Raudsepp <ma...@juffo.org>: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> > the one that tests values just before numeric overflow >>>> >>>> Actually I don't know if that's too useful. I think you should add a >>>> test case that causes an error to be thrown. >>> >>> >>> Actually i added the test case because in the code, when adding step into >>> current for the last value, i expected it to overflow: >>> >>> /* increment current in preparation for next iteration */ >>> add_var(&fctx->current, &fctx->step, &fctx->current); >>> >>> where in the last calculation, current is 9 * 10^131071. Plus 10^131071, >>> it will be 10^131072, which i expected to overflow numeric type (in the doc, >>> numeric's range is "up to 131072 digits before the decimal point"). >>> >>> In attached patch, i narrowed the test case to produce smaller result. >> >> >> Well, as things stand now, the logic relies on cmp_var and the sign of the >> stop and current values. it is right that it would be better to check for >> overflow before going through the next iteration, and the cleanest and >> cheapest way to do so would be to move the call to make_result after add_var >> and save the result variable in the function context, or something similar, >> but honestly I am not sure it is worth the complication as it would mean >> some refactoring on what make_result actually already does. >> >> I looked at this patch again a bit and finished with the attached, adding an >> example in the docs, refining the error messages and improving a bit the >> regression tests. I have nothing more to comment, so I am marking this patch >> as "ready for committer". > > The patch looks good to me. Barring any objection I will commit the patch. > Memo for me: CATALOG_VERSION_NO must be changed at the commit.
Pushed. Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
