On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 12:31:47PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Yep, it definately looks weird:
> test=> select '-2147483648'::int;
> (1 row)
> test=> select -2147483648::int;
> ERROR: integer out of range
> test=> select -2147483647::int;
> (1 row)
> test=> select '-2147483649'::int;
> ERROR: value "-2147483649" is out of range for type integer
> The non-quoting works only for *47, and the quoting works for *48, but
> both fail for *49.
> I looked at libc's strtol(), and that works fine, as does our existing
> parser checks. The error is coming from int84, a comparison function
> called from the executor. Here is a test program:
I traced through that far and managed to convince myself that the
problem was that it was considering a -...48 to be an int8, rather
than an int4, so was hitting int84() when it shouldn't have been - and
the input values for int84() looked very, very broken.
Specifically, a breakpoint on int84() fires on -..48 and -..49, but
not on -..47, suggesting that the problem is somewhere in the parsing
before it reaches int84().
I'm happy to take a look at it, but got very lost in the maze of twisty
parse routines, all alike, when I tried to track back further. Is there
any overview documentation on that end of the code?
> I see in the freebsd machine/limits.h file:
> * According to ANSI (section 126.96.36.199), the values below must be usable by
> * #if preprocessing directives. Additionally, the expression must have the
> * same type as would an expression that is an object of the corresponding
> * type converted according to the integral promotions. The subtraction for
> * INT_MIN, etc., is so the value is not unsigned; e.g., 0x80000000 is an
> * unsigned int for 32-bit two's complement ANSI compilers (section 188.8.131.52).
> * These numbers are for the default configuration of gcc. They work for
> * some other compilers as well, but this should not be depended on.
> #define INT_MAX 0x7fffffff /* max value for an int */
> #define INT_MIN (-0x7fffffff - 1) /* min value for an int */
> Basically, what is happening is that the special value -INT_MAX-1 is
> being converted to an int value, and the compiler is casting it to an
> unsigned. Seems this is a known C issue and I can't see a good fix for
> it except perhaps check for INT_MIN int he int84 function, but I ran
> some tests and that didn't work either.
I don't read it that way. INT_MIN is correctly read as a signed int,
but it can't be defined as -0x8000000 as that would be parsed as
-(0x80000000) and the constant 0x80000000 is unsigned.
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Suresh Babu.A.G||Date: 2004-03-03 20:23:39|
|Subject: Re: BUG #1090: initdb does not work|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2004-03-03 17:31:47|
|Subject: Re: Integer parsing bug?|