On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 17:15, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> > I guess the best thing to do is just test the value against
> > PG_INT32_MIN/MAX, which is what int84() does. There are 2 other places
> > in numeric.c that use similar code to check for int16/32 overflow, so
> > it's possible that they're broken in the same way on that platform,
> > but they aren't covered by the regression tests, so it's also possible
> > that they're OK. Anyway, something like the attached seems likely to
> > be safer.
>
> Looks plausible by eyeball (I've not tested).
>
So, I have back-branch patches for this ready to go. The question is,
is it better to push now, or wait until after next week's releases?
Regards,
Dean
