| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: money type overflow checks |
| Date: | 2016-08-11 20:09:53 |
| Message-ID: | 1a499c6f-9a35-9eca-9857-0acbe371e74a@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8/5/16 1:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> No, I don't think it's sufficient after a multiplication by 10. That
> would be enough to shift some bits clear out of the word, but there's
> no certainty that the new sign bit would be 1.
>
> The scheme used in scanint8 is safe. But I think it was written that way
> mainly to avoid hard-wired assumptions about how wide int64 is, a
> consideration that's a mite obsolete now.
OK, I did it like int8, and added more tests. My original patch didn't
get the most negative integer right.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v2-0001-Add-overflow-checks-to-money-type-input-function.patch | text/x-patch | 7.6 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-08-11 21:11:03 | Add hint for function named "is" |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-08-11 19:34:16 | Re: No longer possible to query catalogs for index capabilities? |