| From: | John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Baji Shaik <baji(dot)pgdev(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Use ssup_datum_*_cmp for int2, oid, and oid8 sort support |
| Date: | 2026-07-23 18:34:22 |
| Message-ID: | CANWCAZbT+woyEjnHGnDDURcKgHXqv=cUhYOVxwepms1Vy28OjA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 12:26 PM Zsolt Parragi
<zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com> wrote:
> I think this commit caused a regression with OIDs >= 2**31:
>
> CREATE TABLE t (o oid);
> INSERT INTO t VALUES ('2147483648');
> SELECT o FROM t UNION ALL SELECT '3000000000'::oid ORDER BY 1;
Thanks for reporting! Here's the problem: An oid from a heap tuple
goes through fetch_att(), which uses Int32GetDatum for all 4-byte
byval types, which sign-extends. An oid produced by oidin() goes
through ObjectIdGetDatum, which zero-extends. That didn't matter for
btoidfastcmp(), since it compared via DatumGetObjectId(x).
I think the easiest fix is to revert the oid part of commit 51cd5d6f0,
leaving behind the int2 and oid8 parts. The asymmetry between the 2
oid types would look odd, though, so that would require an explanatory
comment.
--
John Naylor
Amazon Web Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | surya poondla | 2026-07-23 18:59:33 | Re: [DESIGN] Soft DROP TABLE, recoverable drops for PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2026-07-23 18:22:01 | Re: Fix race condition in pg_get_publication_tables with concurrent DROP TABLE |