On Mon, Jul 8, 2024, at 11:45, Dean Rasheed wrote: > On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 at 00:40, Joel Jacobson <j...@compiler.org> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jul 7, 2024, at 13:28, Dean Rasheed wrote: >> > I've also tidied up a bit by replacing all instances of SHRT_MAX with >> > a new constant NUMERIC_WEIGHT_MAX, whose name more accurately >> > describes the limit, as used in various other overflow checks. >> >> Having thought a bit more on this, I think we probably need a >> DEC_DIGITS sensitive definition of NUMERIC_WEIGHT_MAX, >> since per spec the max range for numeric is 0x20000 (131072) >> decimal digits. >> > > No, the maximum weight is determined by the use of int16 to store the > weight. Therefore if you did reduce DEC_DIGITS to 1 or 2, the number > of decimal digits allowed before the decimal point would be reduced > too.
OK, that can actually be seen as a feature, especially since it's of course more likely DEC_DIGITS could increase in the future than decrease. For example, let's say we would double it to 8, then if NUMERIC_WEIGHT_MAX would still be 0x7FFF (32767), then the maximum range for numeric would increase from 131072 to 262144 decimal digits allowed before the decimal point. LGTM. Regards, Joel
