> On 6 Mar 2024, at 20:12, a.imamov@postgrespro.ru wrote:
> I agree with the proposed changes in favor of backward compatibility.
I went ahead to pushed this after another look. I'm a bit hesitant to
backpatch this since there are no reports against it, and I don't have good
sense for how ECPG code is tested and maintained across minor version upgrades.
If we want to I will of course do so, so please chime in in case there are
different and more informed opinions.
> Also, is it a big deal that the PGTYPESnumeric_to_long() function doesn't
> exactly match the documentation, compared to PGTYPESnumeric_to_int()? It
> handles underflow case separately and sets errno to PGTYPES_NUM_UNDERFLOW
> additionally.
Fixed as well.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
