On 9/1/08, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>  > - In attempt to preserve maximum range of values for INT64_IS_BUSTED
>  >   systems, the code is written rather non-obvious way.
>
> I do not personally object a bit to making the units comparisons
>  case-insensitive (I think it's mainly Peter who wants to be strict
>  about it).  I don't think there are any other good ideas in this
>  patch, however, and exposing ourselves to intermediate overflows in
>  the name of simplicity is definitely not one.

For all practical purposes, the overflow is insignificant when int64
works.  I'll look if I can avoid it on INT64_IS_BUSTED case.

In the meantime, here is simple patch for case-insensivity.

-- 
marko

In response to

• Re: [PATCH] Cleanup of GUC units code at 2008-09-01 02:56:35 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: [PATCH] Cleanup of GUC units code at 2008-09-02 12:05:16 from Peter Eisentraut

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Stephen Frost	Date: 2008-09-01 13:49:22
	Subject: Re: Extending grant insert on tables to sequences
Previous:	From: Marko Kreen	Date: 2008-09-01 13:33:53
	Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make gram.y use palloc/pfree for memory management