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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: kjs(at)teews(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #17128: minimum numeric 'integer' is -2147483647 not -2147483648 as documented
Date: 2021-07-30 15:14:32
Message-ID: 1003602.1627658072@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 7:53 AM PG Bug reporting form <
> noreply(at)postgresql(dot)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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John Naylor 2021-07-30 17:56:30 Re: BUG #17128: minimum numeric 'integer' is -2147483647 not -2147483648 as documented
Previous Message John Naylor 2021-07-30 15:05:14 Re: BUG #17128: minimum numeric 'integer' is -2147483647 not -2147483648 as documented