On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 at 15:17, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Amul Sul <sulamul@gmail.com> writes:
> > 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 patch as-presented isn't very compelling for
> lack of callers of the new function
Tom, are you saying you think we're not interested in just adding this
function unless it's part of this refactoring?
Amul, do you think if we did numeric_to_int64/numeric_to_uint64 as a
refactored API and a second patch that made numeric_pg_lsn and other
consumers use it it would clean up the code significantly?
--
greg