Horton

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

John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: kjs@teews.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2021-07-30T17:56:30Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Attachments

On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 11:14 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> 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.

Here's a draft fix for master, with regression tests. It will need a bit of
massaging for the back branches -- the problem goes back at least to 9.6.

--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Commits

  1. Fix range check in ECPG numeric to int conversion