[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> > [mailto:owner-pgsql-general@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Nicolas Huillard
> >
> > I have a DB with is updated using MS Access. Primary keys are
> > Int4 with default random values ("Num_roAuto" + "Al_atoire" in Access).
> > The DB is migrated as-is in Postgres, with tbl_prod.cle_prod
> > field containing values from -2057496808 to 2139583719.
> > When I SELECT in the table, using the INT4 cle_prod value, PG
> > doesn't find the tuple. When I SELECT using the VARCHAR(10)
> > ref_prod value, PG finds the tuple, and show the right value for
> > the cle_prod filed : the same as the one I SELECTed for...
> >
> > This sounds like the long negative integer values given in PSQL
> > is not converted correctly while executing.
> > Using a long positive integer value, all works like a charm...
> >
> > Below is the queries type sto sho what append.
> > I'm using Postgres 6.5.2 from the RPMs.
> >
>
> Could you try the follwoing patch ?
Hiroshi, I don't see this in the main tree, nor do I see it having been
requested for application. Should I apply it?
>
> Regards.
>
> Hiroshi Inoue
>
> *** nbtcompare.c 2000/01/11 03:33:34 1.3
> --- nbtcompare.c 2000/01/19 05:42:06
> ***************
> *** 34,40 ****
> int32
> btint4cmp(int32 a, int32 b)
> {
> ! return a - b;
> }
>
> int32
> --- 34,45 ----
> int32
> btint4cmp(int32 a, int32 b)
> {
> ! if (a > b)
> ! return 1;
> ! else if (a == b)
> ! return 0;
> ! else
> ! return -1;
> }
>
> int32
>
>
>
> ************
>
>
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
