Message-ID: <97aa22d7-b80f-efa1-f368-3dbf73a15980@enterprisedb.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 16:10:39 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.0
Subject: Re: Non-decimal integer literals
Content-Language: en-US
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
 John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>
References: <b239564c-cad0-b23e-c57e-166d883cb97d@enterprisedb.com>
 <abb04ce4-a6b8-1c95-fa16-dc87e851e106@postgresfriends.org>
 <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>
 <b9d1f3e4-161c-f00c-c259-8391a2a91bd1@enterprisedb.com>
 <CALNJ-vTmD7DGr9VU1x-Rt9GVJowQeX9t44CDhZJE=EUnp+7FeQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFBsxsEt_CFGk1vBEn=arrDKMFfdryjDHnNvFzpkhh+MktGNKA@mail.gmail.com>
 <0f37d2ec-6689-4d23-7ba5-4d2a73c2666f@enterprisedb.com>
 <577603ec-787b-61b8-23a2-1bd0457ed1c7@enterprisedb.com>
 <be7fb835-abf9-2f5a-de5d-ad946a7d42e1@enterprisedb.com>
 <c42cb38a-ac42-dd92-2935-dce3b9806e26@enterprisedb.com>
 <CA+TgmoZv2Q11P1JbF+ziu1b8vsBpcjfPqXsHMR0hJqSTeLP1xQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bef9c869-e773-f792-fde2-d7555add2879@enterprisedb.com>
 <CA+TgmoZRJzBe6yKeBpQ2auHndeV-bzygSY=gr0A0KixZ2giKNg@mail.gmail.com>
 <2317133.1643155358@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
In-Reply-To: <2317133.1643155358@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/97aa22d7-b80f-efa1-f368-3dbf73a15980%40enterprisedb.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 26.01.22 01:02, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 5:34 AM Peter Eisentraut
>> <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> 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.

I think it would be strange if I/O routines would accept a different 
syntax from the literals.  Also, the behavior of a cast from string/text 
to a numeric type is usually defined in terms of what the literal syntax 
is, so they need to be aligned.