Re: WIP: to_char, support for EEEE format

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP: to_char, support for EEEE format
Date: 2009-08-08 16:06:50
Message-ID: 16242.1249747610@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 2009/8/3 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> Uh, no, we had better support more. The actual limit of the current
>> numeric format is 1e+131072.

> Given your comment above I'm thinking it reasonable to use an int32 to
> store the exponent -- will that be safe?

Seems reasonable to me.

> That would allow for a maximum of 10 exponent digits. As an aside, I
> note that int4out() hardcodes the maximum number of digits rather than
> exposing a constant (c.f. MAXINT8LEN in int8.c). I'm considering
> adding MAXINT2LEN and MAXINT4LEN to int.c in passing. Excessive
> tinkering, or worthy improvement?

Don't really care. short and int are the same sizes on all platforms of
interest, and are likely to remain so --- if they don't, we'll have way
more places to fix than this one. INT8 has historically been more
platform-dependent.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2009-08-08 16:15:32 Re: hot standby - merged up to CVS HEAD
Previous Message Boszormenyi Zoltan 2009-08-08 15:58:11 Re: Split-up ECPG patches