Hi Dave, Please test the patch with query provided by user,
SELECT ARRAY[48994717597666517,48968053424532376,76561198004879311,76561198078757065,76561198086825618]::text as good, ARRAY[48994717597666520,48968053424532376,76561198004879311,76561198078757065,76561198086825618] as bad I was doing regression with some large arbitrary numbers due to which it was converting it to numeric[] and numeric[] is already handled in our code. -- Regards, Murtuza Zabuawala EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 7:18 PM, Murtuza Zabuawala < murtuza.zabuaw...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > That is strange. > > I tested on PG9.6 and it was working properly, What is the your PG > version? > > > > -- > Regards, > Murtuza Zabuawala > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 7:06 PM, Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Murtuza Zabuawala < >> murtuza.zabuaw...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>>> >>>> PFA minor patch to fix the the issue with bigint[] array values as JS >>>> truncates long numbers from array object. >>>> RM#2272 >>>> >>> >> Hi >> >> As far as I can see, this doesn't work as expected. The "bad" column is >> interpreted as numeric[] on my machine, which I assume needs to be added to >> the list as well? >> >> -- >> Dave Page >> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com >> Twitter: @pgsnake >> >> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com >> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >> > >
