Re: Re: Updated interval patches (SQL std output, ISO8601 intervals, and interval rounding)

Tom Lane wrote:
> The original INT64 coding here is exact (at least for the common case
> where fval is zero) but I'm not convinced that your revision can't
> suffer from roundoff error.

Good point.  I'll study this tonight; and either try to make a patch
that'll be exact where fval's zero or try to come up with convincing
reasons that it's harmless.

Once this settles I suppose I should post a ECPG patch that's based
off of these Decode/Encode interval functions too?