On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:11 AM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> Also, cash_pl, cash_mi, cash_mul_int4 and so on... does not have overflow
> checks
> like as int8pl has.
>
> Of course, most of people don't need to worry about 64bit overflow for
> money... :-).
If you are using Zimbabwean dollar that's an
Also, cash_pl, cash_mi, cash_mul_int4 and so on... does not have overflow checks
like as int8pl has.
Of course, most of people don't need to worry about 64bit overflow for
money... :-).
2015-10-08 0:03 GMT+09:00 Kohei KaiGai :
> I noticed cash_mul_int8 / cash_div_int8 are defined in cash.c,
> how
Kohei KaiGai writes:
> I noticed cash_mul_int8 / cash_div_int8 are defined in cash.c,
> however, pg_proc.h and pg_operator.h contains no relevant entries.
> Is it just a careless oversight?
Hm. I'd be inclined to fix that by removing the dead code, since
it's evidently useless. For that matter
I noticed cash_mul_int8 / cash_div_int8 are defined in cash.c,
however, pg_proc.h and pg_operator.h contains no relevant entries.
Is it just a careless oversight?
Thanks,
--
KaiGai Kohei
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscriptio