Re: documentation describing the range of a number type 'integer' is incorrect

On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 11:55:33AM -0700, Kevin Sweet wrote:
> The bugs team agreed that it's a bug. The documentation accurately represents
> the buggy code. I thought you might want to update the doc when the bug is
> fixed.

This was fixed in this commit:

commit 5fcf3945bd
Author: John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Date: Fri Jul 30 13:50:23 2021 -0400

Fix range check in ECPG numeric to int conversion

The previous coding guarded against -INT_MAX instead of INT_MIN,
leading to -2147483648 being rejected as out of range.

Per bug #17128 from Kevin Sweet

Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/17128-55a8a879727a3e3a%40postgresql.org
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane
Backpatch to all supported branches

This was backpatched to all branches, so any release after July 30, 2021
should have this fix. I don't see any docs that need adjusting.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> On 10/22/21 6:43 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2021-Jul-29, PG Doc comments form wrote:
>
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/13/datatype-numeric.html says that the range
> of a numeric type integer is -2147483648 to +2147483647 but
> PGTYPESnumeric_to_int considers -2147483648 (a perfectly valid 32-bit
> integer) to be invalid because it compares to -INT_MAX instead of INT_MIN or
> (-INT_MAX - 1). This goes back to the initial commit in the git repo for
> src/interfaces/ecpg/pgtypeslib/numeric.c. And doc/src/sgml/ecpg.sgml
> documents the min being -INT_MAX.
>
> This sounds like an ECPG bug, not a documentation problem.
>
>
>

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com

Indecision is a decision. Inaction is an action. Mark Batterson