Feedback-ID: i131946ab:Fastmail
Message-ID: <b70b15fc-7f8d-5370-21fc-4ec3c154aef3@enterprisedb.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2022 11:31:03 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.1
Subject: Re: Non-decimal integer literals
Content-Language: en-US
To: John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
References: <b239564c-cad0-b23e-c57e-166d883cb97d@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>
 <97aa22d7-b80f-efa1-f368-3dbf73a15980@enterprisedb.com>
 <CAFBsxsGcgqJ_KO-1=jCUJKK2z5rCh2qsf7=VgNWzTvakLMDyBQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bc462aff-675b-86e2-46e3-7eaf5ce3e75f@enterprisedb.com>
 <071c40f2-15cf-5db3-8799-dbac041bb881@enterprisedb.com>
 <CAFBsxsG4m9qK=vyLAj2DGo3vZ6AC0vRxA4gWtExH5RGP=sPo_Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAFBsxsG4m9qK=vyLAj2DGo3vZ6AC0vRxA4gWtExH5RGP=sPo_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/b70b15fc-7f8d-5370-21fc-4ec3c154aef3%40enterprisedb.com>
Precedence: bulk

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