Re: BUG #17128: minimum numeric 'integer' is -2147483647 not -2147483648 as documented

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: BUG #17128: minimum numeric 'integer' is -2147483647 not -2147483648 as documented
Дата
Msg-id 1003602.1627658072@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: BUG #17128: minimum numeric 'integer' is -2147483647 not -2147483648 as documented  (John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>)
Ответы Re: BUG #17128: minimum numeric 'integer' is -2147483647 not -2147483648 as documented  (John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>)
Список pgsql-bugs
John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 7:53 AM PG Bug reporting form <
> noreply@postgresql.org> wrote:
>> -   if (l < -INT_MAX || l > INT_MAX)
>> +   if (l < (-INT_MAX - 1) || l > INT_MAX)

> Yeah, that looks like it should be INT_MIN instead. I'll see about making
> that happen. Thanks for the report!

The whole stanza perhaps ought to be within

#if SIZEOF_LONG > SIZEOF_INT

otherwise some compilers will bleat about useless tests.

(I looked at PGTYPESnumeric_to_long and it seems like it will do
the right thing for 32-bit long, assuming strtol does.)

            regards, tom lane



В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: John Naylor
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: BUG #17128: minimum numeric 'integer' is -2147483647 not -2147483648 as documented
Следующее
От: John Naylor
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: BUG #17128: minimum numeric 'integer' is -2147483647 not -2147483648 as documented