| From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Checking for overflow of integer arithmetic |
| Date: | 2004-10-03 19:47:06 |
| Message-ID: | E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E430688C@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
> Sent: 03 October 2004 20:39
> To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: [HACKERS] Checking for overflow of integer arithmetic
>
> 2. For the int2 and int8 operators, should we stick to a
> one-size-fits-all message "integer out of range", or be more
> specific: "smallint out of range" and "bigint out of range"?
> The existing messages are not completely consistent about
> this. I'm inclined to go with mentioning the specific type
> but I'm not dead set on it.
I vote for being more specific. A little extra info can sometimes ease
debugging problems no matter how trivial it seems.
Regards, Dave.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2004-10-03 20:30:38 | slow count() was: tsearch2 poor performance |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-10-03 19:38:52 | Checking for overflow of integer arithmetic |