From: | Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal for internal Numeric to Uint64 conversion function. |
Date: | 2022-02-16 11:45:11 |
Message-ID: | CAAJ_b95yZ5PVbdiFdJj4hROj-9B7myGLdRXJdoy9dHOJJf1hUw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:50 PM Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 16.02.22 06:00, Amul Sul wrote:
> > Currently, numeric_pg_lsn is the only one that accepts the Numeric
> > value and converts to uint64 and that is the reason all the type
> > conversion code is embedded into it.
>
> There are other functions such as numeric_int8() that work similarly.
> If you are going to refactor, then they should all be treated similarly.
> I'm not sure if it's going to end up being beneficial.
Yeah, that's true, I am too not sure if we really need to refactor
all those; If we want, I can give it a try.
The intention here is to add a function that will convert numeric to
uint64 -- we don't have any as of now, if I am not wrong.
Regards,
Amul
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-02-16 12:00:24 | Re: Adding CI to our tree |
Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2022-02-16 11:36:18 | Re: Design of pg_stat_subscription_workers vs pgstats |