Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL pre-7.1 Linux/Alpha Status...

> Ryan Kirkpatrick <pgsql(at)rkirkpat(dot)net> writes:
> > INSERT INTO OID_TBL(f1) VALUES ('-1040');
> > ERROR: oidin: error reading "-1040": value too large
>
> That's coming from a possibly-misguided error check that I put into
> oidin():
>
> unsigned long cvt;
> char *endptr;
>
> cvt = strtoul(s, &endptr, 10);
>
> ...
>
> /*
> * Cope with possibility that unsigned long is wider than Oid.
> */
> result = (Oid) cvt;
> if ((unsigned long) result != cvt)
> elog(ERROR, "oidin: error reading \"%s\": value too large", s);
>
> On a 32-bit machine, -1040 converts to 4294966256, but on a 64-bit
> machine it converts to 2^64-1040, and the test is accordingly deciding
> that that value won't fit in an Oid.
>
> Not sure what to do about this. If you had actually typed 2^64-1040,
> it would be appropriate for the code to reject it. But I hadn't
> realized that the extra check would introduce a discrepancy between
> 32- and 64-bit machines for negative inputs. Maybe it'd be better just
> to delete the check. Comments anyone?

Can't we just say out of range, rather than too large?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026