Tatsuhito Kasahara wrote:
> Tatsuhito Kasahara wrote:
> > I fix the patch.
> Oops, I forgot to attach the patch for pgstattuple.sql.
> I send it again.
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.
One thing I'm not clear about is the change from %d to %u to represent
int4 values. Since the SQL datatype is signed, this can't really work,
now, can it?
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: