Re: Fw:Re: Fw: ltree_compare in contrib/ltree/ltree_op.c overflows int32 on deep ltree comparisons, returning the wrong sign

On 15/06/2026 18:24, Ayush Tiwari wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 at 20:38, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi 
> <mailto:hlinnaka@iki.fi>> wrote:
> 
>     On 13/06/2026 09:12, Ayush Tiwari wrote:
>      > This looks like a classic case of integer overflow that's
>      > happening in ltree_compare function in ltree_op.c.
>      >
>      > return (al->len - bl->len) * 10 * (an + 1);
>      > return res * 10 * (an + 1);
>      > return (a->numlevel - b->numlevel) * 10 * (an + 1);
>      >
>      > I think the calculation should be done as int64, something of
>     this sort:
> 
>     Yeah, that works. However, I note that the multiplication is only
>     really
>     needed by the ltree_penalty() caller. All the other callers just check
>     if the return value is less than, equal, or greater than zero. It feels
>     a little silly to do all that work of multiplication and clamping for
>     those callers. And for ltree_penalty(), the caller actually converts
>     the
>     return value to a float, so clamping it to int32 range feels a little
>     silly for that too. So I propose the attached, which splits the
>     ltree_compare() function into two variants: one for ltree_penalty()
>     that
>     returns a float, and one for others that don't care about the
>     "magnitude". It duplicates a little code, but I think it's easier to
>     reason about. What do you think?
> 
> 
> I had thought initially of using the method you have added,
> (not with float return-type though, I thought of planning to create
> a duplicate function with int64 type just for ltree_penalty(), but float 
> type
> is better) noting the same thing that rest callers just care about
> comparison with 0.
> 
> But thought backpatching it would be harder, hence I used the int64
> method. However, your patch looks much better than the ugly
> behaviour and I agree it did not make sense to do those
> multiplications at all other comparison functions.

Great, committed. Thanks!

- Heikki