On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:34 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 7:36 AM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:21 PM, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
>>> + /* overflow check (needed for INT64_MIN) */
>>> + if (lval != 0 && (*retval < 0 == lval < 0))
>>>
>>> Why not use "if (lval == INT64_MIN)" instead of this complicated condition?
>>> If it is really needed for some reason, I think that a comment could help.
>>
>> Checking for PG_INT64_MIN only would be fine as well, so let's do so.
>> I thought honestly that we had better check if the result and the left
>> argument are not of the same sign, but well.
>
> Committed and back-patched to 9.5. Doesn't apply further back.
OK, here are patches for 9.1~9.4. The main differences are that in
9.3/9.4 int64 is used for the division operations, and in 9.2/9.1
that's int32. In the latter case pgbench blows up the same way with
that:
\set i -2147483648
\set i :i / -1
select :i;
In those patches INT32_MIN/INT64_MIN need to be explicitly set as well
at the top of pgbench.c. I thing that's fine.
--
Michael