Re: Non-decimal integer literals
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Non-decimal integer literals |
Дата | |
Msg-id | b70b15fc-7f8d-5370-21fc-4ec3c154aef3@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Non-decimal integer literals (John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Non-decimal integer literals
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 14.11.22 08:25, John Naylor wrote: > Regarding the patch, it looks good overall. My only suggestion would be > to add a regression test for just below and just above overflow, at > least for int2. ok > Minor nits: > > - * Process {integer}. Note this will also do the right thing with > {decimal}, > + * Process {*integer}. Note this will also do the right thing with > {numeric}, > > I scratched my head for a while, thinking this was Flex syntax, until I > realized my brain was supposed to do shell-globbing first, at which > point I could see it was referring to multiple Flex rules. I'd try to > rephrase. ok > +T661 Non-decimal integer literals YES SQL:202x draft > > Is there an ETA yet? March 2023 > Also, it's not this patch's job to do it, but there are at least a half > dozen places that open-code turning a hex char into a number. It might > be a good easy "todo item" to unify that. right
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: