From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
cc: adrian.klaver@aklaver.com, frazer@frazermclean.co.uk,
        pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Unexpected interval comparison
In-reply-to: <20170406.120745.33533430.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
References: <20170405.200723.102041631.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <27982.1491421870@sss.pgh.pa.us> <385.1491426413@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20170406.120745.33533430.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Comments: In-reply-to Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
	message dated "Thu, 06 Apr 2017 12:07:45 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <15483.1491449500.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:31:40 -0400
Message-ID: <15484.1491449500@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org

Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes:
> By the way the adt directory is, as suggested by the name,
> storing files with names of SQL data types so "int128.c" among
> then seems incongruous. Is "int128_test.c" acceptable? int16.c
> will be placed there in case we support int16 or hugeint on SQL.

After further reflection I've decided to put int128.h in
src/include/common/, thinking that maybe someday it will be useful
on client side too.  Also I've changed the test harness file to
be src/tools/testint128.c, so that it won't be confused with code
meant to be part of the backend.

> Back to 9.5 seems reasonable to me.

I poked around and noticed that before 9.4, we did not attempt
to guard against overflows in interval calculations at all.
So backpatch to 9.4 seems pretty defensible.  The non-HAVE_INT128
code works fine in 9.4.

I've just about finished adjusting the patch for the back
branches, and will push in a little bit.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general