On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Well, not committing the patch at all would be even less invasive. >> But that's true of any patch, so I don't think being less invasive can >> be the prime goal. Of course it's usually better to be less invasive >> and get the same benefits, but when being less invasive means getting >> fewer benefits, the additional invasiveness has to be weighed against >> what you get out of it. > > I agree with that principle. But desupporting DEC_DIGITS != 4 as > Andrew proposed gives no clue to how it can be worked around should > someone want DEC_DIGITS != 4, as was once anticipated. Whereas a > simple static assertion gives us that flexibility, with two lines of > code, and without either removing or rendering entirely dead > considerable swathes of numeric.c. You can argue that the code was > dead anyway, but Tom didn't seem to feel that way when he wrote it. > Why mess with that? There is no benefit to doing so.
I'll wait to comment on this until I have a few minutes to read TFP. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
