Re: extend pgbench expressions with functions

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 9:46 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:34 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > OK, here are patches for 9.1~9.4. The main differences are that in
> > 9.3/9.4 int64 is used for the division operations, and in 9.2/9.1
> > that's int32. In the latter case pgbench blows up the same way with
> > that:
> > \set i -2147483648
> > \set i :i / -1
> > select :i;
> > In those patches INT32_MIN/INT64_MIN need to be explicitly set as well
> > at the top of pgbench.c. I thing that's fine.
>
> Oh, gosh, I should have said more clearly that I didn't really see a
> need to fix this all the way back. But I guess we could.
>

And now there are patches. Well, nobody has complained about that until now
except me... So we could live without patching back-branches, but it don't
think it hurts much to fix those holes.
--
Michael