Re: [HACKERS] cash_mul_int8 / cash_div_int8

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

Re: [HACKERS] cash_mul_int8 / cash_div_int8

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

Re: [HACKERS] cash_mul_int8 / cash_div_int8

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