Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 05:37:19 -0500
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, exclusion@gmail.com,
	pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #18240: Undefined behaviour in cash_mul_flt8() and friends
Message-ID: <ZXg33020jpsKYlCq@momjian.us>
References: <18240-c5da758d7dc1ecf0@postgresql.org>
 <ZXbi3xo7QhQIe1YN@paquier.xyz>
 <2171714.1702307153@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <ZXgh74Ykj3iWvXKr@paquier.xyz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZXgh74Ykj3iWvXKr@paquier.xyz>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZXg33020jpsKYlCq%40momjian.us>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 10:03:43AM +0100, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 10:05:53AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Yeah, approximately none of cash.c pays any attention to the risks
> > of overflow/underflow.  Improving that situation would be a good
> > finger exercise for some aspiring hacker, perhaps.  Although I bet
> > somebody will ask again why it is that we continue to support the
> > money type.
> 
> AFAIK, we discourage the use of money in the wiki for quite a few
> years:
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Don%27t_Do_This#Don.27t_use_money
> 
> And numeric has much better code coverage and support.  I am wondering
> whether we've reached the point where it would be better to remove it
> entirely from the tree, and just tell people to use numeric.  This has
> a cost for upgrades, where we should cross check for its use but there
> is already check_for_data_type_usage() to do this job so the facility
> is there.

Yes, probably.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Only you can decide what is important to you.