Re: extend pgbench expressions with functions

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: extend pgbench expressions with functions
Date: 2016-02-01 13:34:15
Message-ID: CA+Tgmoa6PtXnXARCWFg0Fta+jV3CdvP4EVM+U3pMMqGbLd=njw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 7:36 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:21 PM, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
>> + /* overflow check (needed for INT64_MIN) */
>> + if (lval != 0 && (*retval < 0 == lval < 0))
>>
>> Why not use "if (lval == INT64_MIN)" instead of this complicated condition?
>> If it is really needed for some reason, I think that a comment could help.
>
> Checking for PG_INT64_MIN only would be fine as well, so let's do so.
> I thought honestly that we had better check if the result and the left
> argument are not of the same sign, but well.

Committed and back-patched to 9.5. Doesn't apply further back.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Korotkov 2016-02-01 13:40:50 Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive
Previous Message Ashutosh Bapat 2016-02-01 13:27:35 Re: postgres_fdw join pushdown (was Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs)