pg.ddx.io pgsql-docs@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feeddocumentation describing the range of a number type 'integer' is incorrect
5+ messages / 4 participants
[nested] [flat]
* documentation describing the range of a number type 'integer' is incorrect
@ 2021-07-29 22:27 PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: PG Doc comments form @ 2021-07-29 22:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org; +Cc: kjs@teews.com
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/13/datatype-numeric.html
Description:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/13/datatype-numeric.html says that the range
of a numeric type integer is -2147483648 to +2147483647 but
PGTYPESnumeric_to_int considers -2147483648 (a perfectly valid 32-bit
integer) to be invalid because it compares to -INT_MAX instead of INT_MIN or
(-INT_MAX - 1). This goes back to the initial commit in the git repo for
src/interfaces/ecpg/pgtypeslib/numeric.c. And doc/src/sgml/ecpg.sgml
documents the min being -INT_MAX.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: documentation describing the range of a number type 'integer' is incorrect
@ 2021-10-22 13:43 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
parent: PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Alvaro Herrera @ 2021-10-22 13:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kjs@teews.com; pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org; +Cc: Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org>
On 2021-Jul-29, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/13/datatype-numeric.html says that the range
> of a numeric type integer is -2147483648 to +2147483647 but
> PGTYPESnumeric_to_int considers -2147483648 (a perfectly valid 32-bit
> integer) to be invalid because it compares to -INT_MAX instead of INT_MIN or
> (-INT_MAX - 1). This goes back to the initial commit in the git repo for
> src/interfaces/ecpg/pgtypeslib/numeric.c. And doc/src/sgml/ecpg.sgml
> documents the min being -INT_MAX.
This sounds like an ECPG bug, not a documentation problem.
--
Álvaro Herrera 39°49'30"S 73°17'W — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"XML!" Exclaimed C++. "What are you doing here? You're not a programming
language."
"Tell that to the people who use me," said XML.
https://burningbird.net/the-parable-of-the-languages/
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: documentation describing the range of a number type 'integer' is incorrect
@ 2021-10-22 18:55 Kevin Sweet <kevin@teews.com>
parent: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Kevin Sweet @ 2021-10-22 18:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>; pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org; +Cc: Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<font face="Arial">The bugs team agreed that it's a bug. The
documentation accurately represents the buggy code. I thought you
might want to update the doc when the bug is fixed.<br>
<br>
</font><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/22/21 6:43 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:202110221343.rgmrpm6sy3be@alvherre.pgsql">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On 2021-Jul-29, PG Doc comments form wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.postgresql.org/docs/13/datatype-numeric.html">https://www.postgresql.org/docs/13/...; says that the range
of a numeric type integer is -2147483648 to +2147483647 but
PGTYPESnumeric_to_int considers -2147483648 (a perfectly valid 32-bit
integer) to be invalid because it compares to -INT_MAX instead of INT_MIN or
(-INT_MAX - 1). This goes back to the initial commit in the git repo for
src/interfaces/ecpg/pgtypeslib/numeric.c. And doc/src/sgml/ecpg.sgml
documents the min being -INT_MAX.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
This sounds like an ECPG bug, not a documentation problem.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: documentation describing the range of a number type 'integer' is incorrect
@ 2021-10-22 19:23 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
parent: Kevin Sweet <kevin@teews.com>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Alvaro Herrera @ 2021-10-22 19:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kevin Sweet <kevin@teews.com>; +Cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org, Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org>
On 2021-Oct-22, Kevin Sweet wrote:
> The bugs team agreed that it's a bug. The documentation accurately
> represents the buggy code. I thought you might want to update the doc
> when the bug is fixed.
It looks like the bug and the docs have both been fixed for months. I
just somehow failed to realize that I was replying to such an old message.
Sorry for the noise.
https://postgr.es/m/17128-55a8a879727a3e3a@postgresql.org
--
Álvaro Herrera 39°49'30"S 73°17'W — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"The Gord often wonders why people threaten never to come back after they've
been told never to return" (www.actsofgord.com)
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: documentation describing the range of a number type 'integer' is incorrect
@ 2022-08-17 19:59 Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
parent: Kevin Sweet <kevin@teews.com>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Bruce Momjian @ 2022-08-17 19:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kevin Sweet <kevin@teews.com>; +Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>; pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org, Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org>
On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 11:55:33AM -0700, Kevin Sweet wrote:
> The bugs team agreed that it's a bug. The documentation accurately represents
> the buggy code. I thought you might want to update the doc when the bug is
> fixed.
This was fixed in this commit:
commit 5fcf3945bd
Author: John Naylor <john.naylor@postgresql.org>
Date: Fri Jul 30 13:50:23 2021 -0400
Fix range check in ECPG numeric to int conversion
The previous coding guarded against -INT_MAX instead of INT_MIN,
leading to -2147483648 being rejected as out of range.
Per bug #17128 from Kevin Sweet
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/17128-55a8a879727a3e3a%40postgresql.org
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane
Backpatch to all supported branches
This was backpatched to all branches, so any release after July 30, 2021
should have this fix. I don't see any docs that need adjusting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> On 10/22/21 6:43 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2021-Jul-29, PG Doc comments form wrote:
>
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/13/datatype-numeric.html says that the range
> of a numeric type integer is -2147483648 to +2147483647 but
> PGTYPESnumeric_to_int considers -2147483648 (a perfectly valid 32-bit
> integer) to be invalid because it compares to -INT_MAX instead of INT_MIN or
> (-INT_MAX - 1). This goes back to the initial commit in the git repo for
> src/interfaces/ecpg/pgtypeslib/numeric.c. And doc/src/sgml/ecpg.sgml
> documents the min being -INT_MAX.
>
> This sounds like an ECPG bug, not a documentation problem.
>
>
>
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Indecision is a decision. Inaction is an action. Mark Batterson
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-08-17 19:59 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-07-29 22:27 documentation describing the range of a number type 'integer' is incorrect PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>
2021-10-22 13:43 ` Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
2021-10-22 18:55 ` Kevin Sweet <kevin@teews.com>
2021-10-22 19:23 ` Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
2022-08-17 19:59 ` Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox