Re: proposal: minscale, rtrim, btrim functions for numeric

From: "Karl O(dot) Pinc" <kop(at)meme(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: proposal: minscale, rtrim, btrim functions for numeric
Date: 2019-12-09 23:03:43
Message-ID: 20191209170343.4ce8f401@slate.karlpinc.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 21:04:21 +0100
Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> I fixed almost all mentioned issues (that I understand)

If you don't understand you might ask, or at least say.
That way I know you've noticed my remarks and I don't
have to repeat them.

I have 2 remaining suggestions.

1) As previously suggested: Consider moving
all the code you added to numeric.c to right after
the scale() related code. This is equivalent to
what was done in pg_proc.dat and regression tests
where all the scale related stuff is in one
place in the file.

2) Now that the function is called min_scale()
it might be nice if your "minscale" variable
in numeric.c was named "min_scale".

I don't feel particularly strongly about either
of the above but think them a slight improvement.

I also wonder whether all the trim_scale() tests
are now necessary, but not enough to make any suggestions.
Especially because, well, tests are good.

Regards,

Karl <kop(at)meme(dot)com>
Free Software: "You don't pay back, you pay forward."
-- Robert A. Heinlein

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2019-12-09 23:25:46 Re: verbose cost estimate
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-12-09 22:40:40 Re: verbose cost estimate