| From: | jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Tender Wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com>, Keyerror Smart <smartkeyerror(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [BUG] hstore integer overflow when constructing large values |
| Date: | 2026-08-18 05:54:38 |
| Message-ID: | CACJufxEdAQiuE3pT=h4mTk7KK-0L7O+pcwcRaqKdDNnDF-D7TQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 1:37 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 01:05:22PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > The nested calls in hstore_out() feel a bit inelegant as well written
> > this way. Something in sequential form would feel much easier to
> > parse, with one line for each add_size involved.
>
> Cleaned up a bit all that, and applied on HEAD.
Hi.
https://git.postgresql.org/cgit/postgresql.git/commit/?id=92e20d4a4382810a30bdb394473d6ee891edab73
The consensus seems favoring "size_t" over "Size" for new code, see [1], [2],
though this doesn't appear to be documented anywhere.
[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/688312.1782222788%40sss.pgh.pa.us
[2]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANWCAZZJxgDAUsBK-1CctczwTz2TVo3TzjhhSD7fAA9EWte3eA%40mail.gmail.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-08-18 05:55:32 | Re: Fix a relcache reference leak in reorderbuffer.c |
| Previous Message | Denis Smirnov | 2026-08-18 05:47:59 | Re: Batching in executor |