On 21 September 2015 at 17:14, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > Dean Rasheed <[email protected]> writes: >> On 21 September 2015 at 16:09, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: >>> After trying to rework the comment to explain what maxdig really meant >>> after your changes, I came to the conclusion that it'd be better to do >>> it as per attached. Does this look sane to you? > >> Yes that looks better. It's still the same amount of extra headroom >> (21), but I think it's clearer your way. > > OK, pushed (after further hacking on the comment ...) > > regards, tom lane
I just noticed that div_var_fast() has almost identical code, and so in principle it has the same vulnerability, although it obviously only affects the transcendental functions. I don't actually have a test case that triggers it, but it's basically the same algorithm, so logically it needs the same additional headroom to avoid a possible overflow. Regards, Dean -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
