On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 at 05:58, Zhihong Yu <zyu@yugabyte.com> wrote: > Here is sample output with patch: > > # SELECT '-92233720368547758.085'::money; > ERROR: value "-92233720368547758.085" is out of range for type money > LINE 1: SELECT '-92233720368547758.085'::money;
I'm struggling to follow along here. There are already overflow checks for this in cash_in(), which is exactly where they should be.
The above case already fails on master, there's even a regression test to make sure it does for this exact case, just look at money.out:356. So, if we're already stopping this from happening in cash_in(), why do you think it also needs to happen in cash_out()?
I'm also not sure why you opted to use LONG_MIN for your check. The C type "Cash" is based on int64, that's not long.
David
Hi, David:
I am very sorry for not having looked closer at the sample SQL statement earlier.
Indeed, the previous statement didn't trigger cash_out().
I think this was due to the fact that sanitizer assertion may be separated from the statement triggering the assertion.
I am still going over the test output, trying to pinpoint the statement.
Meanwhile, I want to thank you for pointing out the constant shouldn't be used for the boundary check.
How about patch v2 which uses the same check from cash_in() ?
I will see which statement triggers the assertion.
