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 correct result for any value of arg1, not only
> INT_MIN.
I agree. Will send a v2. Thanks. :)
- xi