On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The smallest value for precision which requires 2 numeric_digits is
>>> always 2; and the required number of numeric_digits increases by 1
>>> each time the number of base-10 digits increases by DEC_DIGITS.
>
>> And here is a patch implementing that.
>
> Looks good to me.
>
> One thought --- to make this look more like the typmod-whacking in
> the numeric() function, perhaps the first line of numeric_maximum_size
> ought to be
>
> if (typemod <= (int32) (VARHDRSZ))
> return -1;
>
> I think the author of numeric() was concerned that VARHDRSZ might be
> unsigned, in which case the cast-less comparison would do the Wrong
> Thing. Reference to c.h shows that it's signed, so no bug, but having
> the cast in the comparison seems like good conservative programming.
>
> Or, if you prefer, you can take out the cast in numeric(). I merely
> opine that the two bits of code should match.
*scratches head*
One of those tests uses < and the other uses <=
Which one is wrong?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company