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