Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Sep 08, 2024 at 05:32:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> In looking at this, I found that there's also no test coverage
>> for the EEEE, V, or PL format codes. Also, the possibility of
>> overflow while converting an input value to int in order to
>> pass it to int_to_roman was ignored. Attached is a patch that
>> adds more test coverage and cleans up the Roman-numeral code
>> a little bit.
> I stared at the patch for a while, and it looks good to me.
Pushed, thanks for looking!
>> BTW, I also discovered that there is a little bit of support
>> for a "B" format code: we can parse it, but then we ignore it.
> AFAICT it's been like that since it was introduced [0]. I searched the
> archives and couldn't find any discussion about this format code. Given
> that, I don't have any concerns about removing it unless it causes ERRORs
> for calls that currently succeed, but even then, it's probably fine. This
> strikes me as something that might be fun for an aspiring hacker, though.
Yeah, I left that alone for now. I don't have much interest in
making it work, but perhaps someone else will.
regards, tom lane
