On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 17:15, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > I guess the best thing to do is just test the value against > > PG_INT32_MIN/MAX, which is what int84() does. There are 2 other places > > in numeric.c that use similar code to check for int16/32 overflow, so > > it's possible that they're broken in the same way on that platform, > > but they aren't covered by the regression tests, so it's also possible > > that they're OK. Anyway, something like the attached seems likely to > > be safer. > > Looks plausible by eyeball (I've not tested). >
So, I have back-branch patches for this ready to go. The question is, is it better to push now, or wait until after next week's releases? Regards, Dean