mirror of https://github.com/postgres/postgres
Fix thinko introduced in 6b423ec67
As pointed out by Dean Rasheed, we really should be using tmp > -(PG_INTNN_MIN / 10) rather than tmp > (PG_INTNN_MAX / 10) for checking for overflows in the accumulation in the pg_strtointNN functions. This does happen to be the same number when dividing by 10, but there is a pending patch which adds other bases and this is not the same number if we were to divide by 2 rather than 10, for example. If the base 2 parsing was to follow this example then we could accidentally think a string containing the value of PG_INT32_MIN was an overflow in pg_strtoint32. Clearly that shouldn't overflow. This does not fix any actual live bugs, only some bad examples of overflow checks for future bases. Reported-by: Dean Rasheed Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCVEtwfhdm-K-etZYFB0=qsR0nT6qXta_W+GQx4RYph1dg@mail.gmail.compull/112/head
parent
d94f32d49f
commit
8692f6644e
Loading…
Reference in new issue