On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
>> Here's a patch for the second function suggested in 5643125e.1030...@joh.to.
>
> I think this patch got useful feedback but we never saw a followup
> version posted. I closed it as returned-with-feedback. Feel free to
> submit a new versi
Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here's a patch for the second function suggested in 5643125e.1030...@joh.to.
I think this patch got useful feedback but we never saw a followup
version posted. I closed it as returned-with-feedback. Feel free to
submit a new version for the 2016-03 commitfest.
-
On 2016-01-07 1:11 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
A different approach is that I'm not real sure why we want a function
that returns a modified numeric value at all. To the extent I understood
Marko's original use case, it seems like what you'd invariably do with the
result is extract its scale().
Well,
On 6 January 2016 at 15:21, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> Actually I found the implementation a little confusing, partly because
> the first comment doesn't really match the line of code that follows
> it, and partly because of the complexity of the loop, the macros and
> working out all the exit conditio
On 7 January 2016 at 00:11, Tom Lane wrote:
> A different approach is that I'm not real sure why we want a function
> that returns a modified numeric value at all. To the extent I understood
> Marko's original use case, it seems like what you'd invariably do with the
> result is extract its scale
2016-01-07 8:12 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule :
>
>
> 2016-01-07 1:11 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane :
>
>> Dean Rasheed writes:
>> > On 6 January 2016 at 20:09, Robert Haas wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Dean Rasheed <
>> dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> It seems like a useful function to h
2016-01-07 1:11 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane :
> Dean Rasheed writes:
> > On 6 January 2016 at 20:09, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Dean Rasheed
> wrote:
> >>> It seems like a useful function to have, but perhaps it should just be
> >>> called trim() rather than numeric_trim(),
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 6 January 2016 at 20:09, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Dean Rasheed
>> wrote:
>>> It seems like a useful function to have, but perhaps it should just be
>>> called trim() rather than numeric_trim(), for consistenc
Dean Rasheed writes:
> On 6 January 2016 at 20:09, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Dean Rasheed
>> wrote:
>>> It seems like a useful function to have, but perhaps it should just be
>>> called trim() rather than numeric_trim(), for consistency with the
>>> names of the oth
On 6 January 2016 at 20:09, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Dean Rasheed
> wrote:
>> It seems like a useful function to have, but perhaps it should just be
>> called trim() rather than numeric_trim(), for consistency with the
>> names of the other numeric functions, which d
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> It seems like a useful function to have, but perhaps it should just be
> called trim() rather than numeric_trim(), for consistency with the
> names of the other numeric functions, which don't start with
> "numeric_".
That wouldn't work in thi
Hi
2016-01-06 16:21 GMT+01:00 Dean Rasheed :
> On 27 December 2015 at 07:11, Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
> >> 2015-11-19 3:58 GMT+01:00 Marko Tiikkaja :
> >>> Here's a patch for the second function suggested in
> >>> 5643125e.1030...@joh.to.
> >>>
> > So I am sending a review of this patch.
> >
>
> I
On 27 December 2015 at 07:11, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> 2015-11-19 3:58 GMT+01:00 Marko Tiikkaja :
>>> Here's a patch for the second function suggested in
>>> 5643125e.1030...@joh.to.
>>>
> So I am sending a review of this patch.
>
I took a quick look at this too.
It seems like a useful function t
Hi
2015-12-26 21:44 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule :
> Hi
>
> 2015-11-19 3:58 GMT+01:00 Marko Tiikkaja :
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Here's a patch for the second function suggested in
>> 5643125e.1030...@joh.to. This is my first patch trying to do anything
>> with numerics, so please be gentle. I'm sure it's full
Hi
2015-11-19 3:58 GMT+01:00 Marko Tiikkaja :
> Hi,
>
> Here's a patch for the second function suggested in
> 5643125e.1030...@joh.to. This is my first patch trying to do anything
> with numerics, so please be gentle. I'm sure it's full of stupid.
>
> January's commit fest, feedback welcome, ya
Hi,
Here's a patch for the second function suggested in
5643125e.1030...@joh.to. This is my first patch trying to do anything
with numerics, so please be gentle. I'm sure it's full of stupid.
January's commit fest, feedback welcome, yada yada..
.m
*** a/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml
--- b/doc/sr
16 matches
Mail list logo
