Daniel Gustafsson писал(а) 2024-03-06 18:03:
On 27 Feb 2024, at 06:08, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 12:28:51AM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
Yeah, I think this is for HEAD only, especially given the lack of
complaints
against backbranches.
Daniel, are you planning to look at that? I haven't done any detailed
lookup, but would be happy to do so it that helps.
I had a look at this today and opted for trimming back the patch a bit.
Reading the informix docs the functions we are mimicking for
compatibility here
does not have an underflow returnvalue, so adding one doesn't seem
right (or
helpful). The attached fixes the return of overflow and leaves it at
that,
which makes it possible to backpatch since it's fixing the code to
match the
documented behavior.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
I agree with the proposed changes in favor of backward compatibility.
Also, is it a big deal that the PGTYPESnumeric_to_long() function
doesn't
exactly match the documentation, compared to PGTYPESnumeric_to_int()? It
handles underflow case separately and sets errno to
PGTYPES_NUM_UNDERFLOW
additionally.
