On 11/14/12 5:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> No need, I'm already patching it.
Oops. Sorry. Ignore my patches.
- xi
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Xi Wang writes:
> I agree. Will send a v2. Thanks. :)
No need, I'm already patching it.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On 11/14/12 4:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Meh. I didn't care for the explicit dependency on INT_MIN in the
> previous patch, and I like introducing INT64_MIN even less. I think
> we should be able to reduce the test to just
>
> if (arg2 == -1)
> return 0;
>
> since zero is the
Xi Wang writes:
> Return 0 for INT_MIN % -1 (64-bit) instead of throwing an exception.
> This patch complements commit f9ac414c that fixed int4mod().
Meh. I didn't care for the explicit dependency on INT_MIN in the
previous patch, and I like introducing INT64_MIN even less. I think
we should be
Return 0 for INT_MIN % -1 (64-bit) instead of throwing an exception.
This patch complements commit f9ac414c that fixed int4mod().
---
src/backend/utils/adt/int8.c |4
src/include/c.h |7 +++
2 files changed, 11 insertions(+)
diff --git a/src/backend/utils/adt/int8.c
