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

> Ryan Kirkpatrick <pgsql@rkirkpat.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@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026