Akshay, can you review/commit this please? On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 6:35 AM, Murtuza Zabuawala < murtuza.zabuaw...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> 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.zabuawala@ > 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 >>> >> >> > -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
