On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> That's ugly. We should actually use TextDatumGetCString because the
>> index is stored as text here via a Datum, and then it is converted
>> back to an integer. So I propose instead the simple patch attached
>> that fi
Michael Paquier writes:
> That's ugly. We should actually use TextDatumGetCString because the
> index is stored as text here via a Datum, and then it is converted
> back to an integer. So I propose instead the simple patch attached
> that fixes the failure for me. Could you check if that works for
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Vitaly Burovoy
wrote:
> On 2016-03-23, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 6:37 AM, Vitaly Burovoy
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello, Hackers!
>>>
>>> While I was reviewed a patch with "json_insert" function I found a bug
>>> which wasn't connected with the patc
On 2016-03-23, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 6:37 AM, Vitaly Burovoy
> wrote:
>
>> Hello, Hackers!
>>
>> While I was reviewed a patch with "json_insert" function I found a bug
>> which wasn't connected with the patch and reproduced at master.
>>
>> It claims about non-integer whe
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 6:37 AM, Vitaly Burovoy
wrote:
> Hello, Hackers!
>
> While I was reviewed a patch with "json_insert" function I found a bug
> which wasn't connected with the patch and reproduced at master.
>
> It claims about non-integer whereas input values are obvious integers
> and in
Hello, Hackers!
While I was reviewed a patch with "json_insert" function I found a bug
which wasn't connected with the patch and reproduced at master.
It claims about non-integer whereas input values are obvious integers
and in an allowed range.
More testing lead to understanding it appears when
