Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nCVlt-0001AF-9n for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 00:02:45 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nCVls-0001IK-62 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 00:02:44 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nCVlr-0001IB-TP for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 00:02:43 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nCVlp-0001GK-PE for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 00:02:43 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 20Q02cTl2317134; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 19:02:38 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Robert Haas cc: Peter Eisentraut , pgsql-hackers , John Naylor Subject: Re: Non-decimal integer literals In-reply-to: References: <3260805.1631106874@sss.pgh.pa.us> <8f2cdc30-350a-9782-8d95-6865a4ccb857@postgresfriends.org> <31bba70a-f5a8-9276-37a6-fa6f2c4eee6c@enterprisedb.com> <0d895aa8-d1de-3637-9ad4-de0269918e77@enterprisedb.com> <0f37d2ec-6689-4d23-7ba5-4d2a73c2666f@enterprisedb.com> <577603ec-787b-61b8-23a2-1bd0457ed1c7@enterprisedb.com> Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas message dated "Tue, 25 Jan 2022 13:15:43 -0500" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2317132.1643155358.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 19:02:38 -0500 Message-ID: <2317133.1643155358@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 5:34 AM Peter Eisentraut > wrote: >> Which part exactly? There are several different changes proposed here. > I was just going based on the description of the feature in your > original post. If someone is hoping that int4in() will accept only > ^\d+$ then they will be disappointed by this patch. Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought this was about what you could write as a SQL literal, not about the I/O behavior of the integer types. I'd be -0.1 on changing the latter. regards, tom lane