Ryan Kirkpatrick <pgsql(at)rkirkpat(dot)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
unsigned long cvt;
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?
> SELECT p.name, p.hobbies.name FROM person* p;
> pqReadData() -- backend closed the channel unexpectedly.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-ports by date
|Next:||From: Magnus Naeslund(f)||Date: 2000-12-20 16:58:27|
|Subject: Re: PostgreSQL pre-7.1 Linux/Alpha Status... |
|Previous:||From: Ryan Kirkpatrick||Date: 2000-12-20 04:08:00|
|Subject: PostgreSQL pre-7.1 Linux/Alpha Status...|
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Paul A Vixie||Date: 2000-12-20 16:53:09|
|Subject: day 2 results|
|Previous:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2000-12-20 16:26:01|
|Subject: RE: SSL Connections|