| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Sergey Koposov <skoposov(at)cmu(dot)edu>, "pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #14722: Segfault in tuplesort_heap_siftup, 32 bit overflow |
| Date: | 2017-07-12 16:53:08 |
| Message-ID: | 15372.1499878388@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
>> Right, it's a hypothetical portability issue. The assumption we're making is
>> that UINT_MAX >= INT_MAX * 2 + 1. I'm not aware of any system where it's not
>> true, but I don't know what the C standards say about that.
> Intuitively, it seems very likely to be true, since two's complement
> arithmetic is already assumed by Postgres,
... right. There haven't been any non-twos-complement machines in the
wild for probably 50 years, and even if there were, this would be *way*
down the list of problems you'd have to fix to get Postgres to run on
one of them. I think a comment is plenty sufficient.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-07-12 17:16:02 | Re: BUG #14722: Segfault in tuplesort_heap_siftup, 32 bit overflow |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-07-12 16:48:29 | Re: BUG #14722: Segfault in tuplesort_heap_siftup, 32 bit overflow |