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 (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to