Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: int8 & INT64_IS_BUSTED

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>
Cc: Postgresql-Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: int8 & INT64_IS_BUSTED
Date: 2007-08-29 23:21:53
Message-ID: 12853.1188429713@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Florian G. Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
> I still think int8mul is buggy. It calculates result as arg1 * arg2, and then
> checks for an overflow by dividing again, and seeing if the right answer
> comes out. Which sounds good. But it *skips* that check if both arguments
> fit into an int32 - check is
> (arg1 == (int64) ((int32) arg1) && arg2 == (int64) ((int32) arg2)).

Good point --- we should probably #ifdef out that part for
INT64_IS_BUSTED.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-08-29 23:26:09
Subject: Re: Why is there a tsquery data type?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-08-29 23:15:10
Subject: Re: Representation of ResourceOwnerIds (transient XIDs) in system views (lazy xid assignment)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group