Re: Non-decimal integer literals - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Non-decimal integer literals
Date
Msg-id b70b15fc-7f8d-5370-21fc-4ec3c154aef3@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Non-decimal integer literals  (John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: Non-decimal integer literals
List pgsql-hackers
On 14.11.22 08:25, John Naylor wrote:
> Regarding the patch, it looks good overall. My only suggestion would be 
> to add a regression test for just below and just above overflow, at 
> least for int2.

ok

> Minor nits:
> 
> - * Process {integer}.  Note this will also do the right thing with 
> {decimal},
> + * Process {*integer}.  Note this will also do the right thing with 
> {numeric},
> 
> I scratched my head for a while, thinking this was Flex syntax, until I 
> realized my brain was supposed to do shell-globbing first, at which 
> point I could see it was referring to multiple Flex rules. I'd try to 
> rephrase.

ok

> +T661 Non-decimal integer literals YES SQL:202x draft
> 
> Is there an ETA yet?

March 2023

> Also, it's not this patch's job to do it, but there are at least a half 
> dozen places that open-code turning a hex char into a number. It might 
> be a good easy "todo item" to unify that.

right




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: libpq support for NegotiateProtocolVersion
Next
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: Add palloc_aligned() to allow arbitrary power of 2 memory alignment