On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 05:03:38PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > Regarding 0001, yes, that's a bug. It is definitely not something > that we could backpatch as we'd begin to reject inputs that were > accidentally rejected, even if I am hoping that nobody in their right > mind would use a '(1,)'::tid or a '(,1)'::tid to map to respectively > (1,0) or (0,1).
One question that I have been asking to myself here is: could the ODBC driver internally generate a tid value that may not be cross-platform portable? And after diving into the code I think that the answer is no by itself, but there are paths where a client application can provide its own value. So I think that there is no practical argument against making the strtoul() call with tid parsing more compliant to the C standard. At least let's try it so on HEAD. If that proves to be a experiment failure, we could always revert during the beta cycle and move back to the old behavior. Here I'd favor more consistency in our code base. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
