On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@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
