Re: FW: [JDBC] BIGINT vs Java's long - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: FW: [JDBC] BIGINT vs Java's long
Date
Msg-id 11890.997213443@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: FW: [JDBC] BIGINT vs Java's long  (Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com> writes:
> I don't think my patch against recent sources would apply cleanly to 
> older ones, and I didn't run the regression against it, but it seemed
> to work, and is only a two line change in current source.

This patch needs more work.  You are assuming that integer division on
negative numbers works the same everywhere, which it most definitely
does not (the direction of truncation was unspecified until C99).
The overflow check will fail on platforms where negative results
truncate towards minus infinity.  So we need a different way of checking
for overflow.

Right off the bat I'm not coming up with an implementation that's both
portable and able to accept INT64_MIN, but this has got to be a solved
problem.  Look around, maybe in the GNU or BSD C libraries...
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephan Szabo
Date:
Subject: Re: FW: [JDBC] BIGINT vs Java's long
Next
From: Fernando Nasser
Date:
Subject: Re: OID wraparound: summary and proposal