Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2022 15:59:37 -0400
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Kevin Sweet <kevin@teews.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
	pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org,
	Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: documentation describing the range of a number type 'integer' is
 incorrect
Message-ID: <Yv1IqedeYKpj0dvD@momjian.us>
References: <202110221343.rgmrpm6sy3be@alvherre.pgsql>
 <41540ed2-5ef9-8b46-6706-9baeb58b8851@teews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <41540ed2-5ef9-8b46-6706-9baeb58b8851@teews.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Yv1IqedeYKpj0dvD%40momjian.us>
Precedence: bulk

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