| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joseph Koshakow <koshy44(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fix overflow in pg_size_pretty |
| Date: | 2024-07-27 22:28:23 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvr421-9UK+BKfwKyZxn5XhbTLOJXppnAgkPqpCJQcoCCQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 28 Jul 2024 at 07:18, Joseph Koshakow <koshy44(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Attached is a patch that resolves an overflow in pg_size_pretty() that
> resulted in unexpected behavior when PG_INT64_MIN was passed in as an
> argument.
Could we just fix this more simply by assigning the absolute value of
the signed variable into an unsigned type? It's a bit less code and
gets rid of the explicit test for PG_INT64_MIN.
David
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| pg_size_pretty_bigint_fix.patch | application/octet-stream | 635 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2024-07-27 22:43:55 | Re: why is pg_upgrade's regression run so slow? |
| Previous Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2024-07-27 22:14:56 | Re: Speed up collation cache |