On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 at 11:08, Joel Jacobson wrote:
>
> LGTM.
>
Thanks for the review. I have pushed and back-patched this.
Regards,
Dean
On Mon, Jul 8, 2024, at 11:45, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 at 00:40, Joel Jacobson 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 accurat
On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 at 00:40, Joel Jacobson 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 ove
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
On Sun, Jul 7, 2024, at 13:28, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> The numeric round() and trunc() functions clamp the scale argument to
> the range between +/- NUMERIC_MAX_RESULT_SCALE, which is +/- 2000.
> That's a long way short of the actual allowed range of type numeric,
> so they produce incorrect results
The numeric round() and trunc() functions clamp the scale argument to
the range between +/- NUMERIC_MAX_RESULT_SCALE, which is +/- 2000.
That's a long way short of the actual allowed range of type numeric,
so they produce incorrect results when rounding/truncating more than
2000 digits before or af
