You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As pointed out by Dean Rasheed, we really should be using tmp >
-(PG_INTNN_MIN / 10) rather than tmp > (PG_INTNN_MAX / 10) for checking
for overflows in the accumulation in the pg_strtointNN functions. This
does happen to be the same number when dividing by 10, but there is a
pending patch which adds other bases and this is not the same number if we
were to divide by 2 rather than 10, for example. If the base 2 parsing
was to follow this example then we could accidentally think a string
containing the value of PG_INT32_MIN was an overflow in pg_strtoint32.
Clearly that shouldn't overflow.
This does not fix any actual live bugs, only some bad examples of overflow
checks for future bases.
Reported-by: Dean Rasheed
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCVEtwfhdm-K-etZYFB0=qsR0nT6qXta_W+GQx4RYph1dg@mail.gmail.com
0 commit comments