[a.imamov@postgrespro.ru]

Daniel Gustafsson писал(а) 2024-03-06 18:03:
>> On 27 Feb 2024, at 06:08, Michael Paquier <michael@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.