Re: Potential issue in ecpg-informix decimal converting functions
От | a.imamov@postgrespro.ru |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Potential issue in ecpg-informix decimal converting functions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | eebf0ad50ad4321d65d2d64dd6b7f17d@postgrespro.ru обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Potential issue in ecpg-informix decimal converting functions (Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>) |
Ответы |
Re: Potential issue in ecpg-informix decimal converting functions
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Daniel Gustafsson писал(а) 2024-03-06 18:03: >> On 27 Feb 2024, at 06:08, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 12:28:51AM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >>> Yeah, I think this is for HEAD only, especially given the lack of >>> complaints >>> against backbranches. >> >> Daniel, are you planning to look at that? I haven't done any detailed >> lookup, but would be happy to do so it that helps. > > I had a look at this today and opted for trimming back the patch a bit. > Reading the informix docs the functions we are mimicking for > compatibility here > does not have an underflow returnvalue, so adding one doesn't seem > right (or > helpful). The attached fixes the return of overflow and leaves it at > that, > which makes it possible to backpatch since it's fixing the code to > match the > documented behavior. > > -- > Daniel Gustafsson I agree with the proposed changes in favor of backward compatibility. Also, is it a big deal that the PGTYPESnumeric_to_long() function doesn't exactly match the documentation, compared to PGTYPESnumeric_to_int()? It handles underflow case separately and sets errno to PGTYPES_NUM_UNDERFLOW additionally.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: