From: | "Jan-Peter Seifert" <Jan-Peter(dot)Seifert(at)gmx(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Hiroshi Inoue <inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Problem with high OIDs because of changed atol behaviour |
Date: | 2011-01-31 15:48:24 |
Message-ID: | 20110131154824.261280@gmx.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-odbc |
Hello Inoue-san,
sorry for asking again.
So will there be an official patch for this problem?
Could you tell me, please?
Thank you very much in advance,
Peter
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 19:18:19 +0900
> Von: Hiroshi Inoue <inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
> An: Jan-Peter Seifert <Jan-Peter(dot)Seifert(at)gmx(dot)de>
> CC: pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Betreff: Re: [ODBC] Problem with high OIDs because of changed atol behaviour
> Hi,
>
> (2011/01/15 0:00), Jan-Peter Seifert wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > we ran into a problem because a Windows 32 bit application is looking
> for rows within the tables of pg_catalog via OID - using psqlODBC (32 bit).
> > As OIDs are unsigned they can be of higher value than INT_MAX. However,
> OIDs greater than INT_MAX seem to be getting clamped to INT_MAX:
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-admin/2011-01/msg00003.php
> >
> > The problem still persists in psqlodbc 09.00.0200.
> >
> > We had a look at the sources of v08.04.0200 to get a clue:
> >
> > convert.c:
> >
> > /*
> > * Macros for unsigned long handling.
> > */
> > #ifdef WIN32
> > #define ATOI32U atol
> > #elif defined(HAVE_STRTOUL)
> > #define ATOI32U(val) strtoul(val, NULL, 10)
> > #else /* HAVE_STRTOUL */
> > #define ATOI32U atol
> > #endif /* WIN32 */
> >
> >
> > /*
> > * Macros for BIGINT handling.
> > */
> > #ifdef ODBCINT64
> > #ifdef WIN32
> > #define ATOI64 _atoi64
> > #define ATOI64U _atoi64
> > #define FORMATI64 "%I64d"
> > #define FORMATI64U "%I64u"
> > #elif (SIZEOF_LONG == 8)
> > …
> >
> > It seems that as of Microsoft Visual C++ 2005 values exceeding the
> positive integer limit let atol return LONG_MAX and values exceeding the
> negative integer limit let atol return LONG_MIN.
> > In case of these overflows errno is set to ERANGE. If the parameter that
> has been passed is NULL, the invalid parameter handler is being invoked -
> as described in parameter validation.
> > If resuming of execution is allowed these functions set errno to EINVAL
> and return 0.
> >
> > In Microsoft Visual C++ 2003 (and earlier versions) there was no such
> error handling of these overflows.
> >
> > We suggest some changes within convert.c that might solve this problem:
> >
> > /*
> > * Macros for unsigned long handling.
> > */
> > #ifdef WIN32
> > #define ATOI32U(val) strtoul(val, NULL, 10)
> > #elif defined(HAVE_STRTOUL)
> > #define ATOI32U(val) strtoul(val, NULL, 10)
> > #else /* HAVE_STRTOUL */
> > #define ATOI32U atol
> > #endif /* WIN32 */
> >
> >
> > /*
> > * Macros for BIGINT handling.
> > */
> > #ifdef ODBCINT64
> > #ifdef WIN32
> > #define ATOI64(val) _strtoi64(val, NULL, 10)
> > #define ATOI64U(val) _strtoui64(val, NULL, 10)
> > #define FORMATI64 "%I64d"
> > #define FORMATI64U "%I64u"
> > #elif (SIZEOF_LONG == 8)
> > …
> >
> > Could look into this, please?
>
> Thanks for your investigation.
> I would take of it.
>
> regards,
> Hiroshi Inoue
--
Neu: GMX De-Mail - Einfach wie E-Mail, sicher wie ein Brief!
Jetzt De-Mail-Adresse reservieren: http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/demail
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heine Ferreira | 2011-01-31 19:19:54 | driver and server questions |
Previous Message | Andrus Moor | 2011-01-30 14:42:01 | 09.00.0100 does not return data, 08.03.0400 causes exception Out of memory while reading tuples |