Vik Fearing <vik.fear...@dalibo.com> writes:
> Also worth mentioning is bug #7766.
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e1tlli5-0007tr...@wrigleys.postgresql.org
Yeah, did you read that whole thread? The real issue here is going to
be whether client-side code falls over on wider-than-32-bit counts.
We can fix the backend and be pretty sure that we've found all the
relevant places inside it, but we'll just be exporting the issue.
I did look at libpq and noted that it doesn't seem to have any internal
problem, because it returns the count to callers as a string (!).
But what do you think are the odds that callers are using code that
won't overflow? I'd bet on finding atoi() or suchlike in a lot of
callers. Even if they thought to use strtoul(), unsigned long is
not necessarily 64 bits wide.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
