On 2017-12-13 08:27:42 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > On 2017-12-12 16:47:17 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Really? We've got test cases that intentionally exercise overflow > >> in the money code? I think we could just drop such tests, until > >> such time as someone fixes the issue. > > > > Some parts at least (input & output), I think it's easy enough to fix > > those up. > > There could be two ways to fix that: > 1) Call the int8 equivalents with DirectFunctionCall2 and rely on the > overflow there, but this has a performance impact. > 2) Add similar checks as in int8.c, which feels like duplicating code > but those are cheap. > You are heading to 2) I guess?
I don't think 1) makes much sense. The error messages will be bad, and the harder cases (e.g. cash_in()) can't share code anyway. > >> (OTOH, I bet we could drop reltime/abstime without too many complaints. > >> Y2038 is coming.) > > > > I'm actually about to send a patch doing so, that code is one mess WRT > > overflow handling. > > Agreed. I think as well that those should be fixed. It does not seem > much complicated to fix them. I'm not following. I was trying to say that I'll send a patch removing the abstime/reltime/tinterval code. Greetings, Andres Freund
