Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > By the way the adt directory is, as suggested by the name, > storing files with names of SQL data types so "int128.c" among > then seems incongruous. Is "int128_test.c" acceptable? int16.c > will be placed there in case we support int16 or hugeint on SQL. After further reflection I've decided to put int128.h in src/include/common/, thinking that maybe someday it will be useful on client side too. Also I've changed the test harness file to be src/tools/testint128.c, so that it won't be confused with code meant to be part of the backend. > Back to 9.5 seems reasonable to me. I poked around and noticed that before 9.4, we did not attempt to guard against overflows in interval calculations at all. So backpatch to 9.4 seems pretty defensible. The non-HAVE_INT128 code works fine in 9.4. I've just about finished adjusting the patch for the back branches, and will push in a little bit. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
