Bruce Momjian writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Done ... let me know whether the back branches still pass regression
>> for you ;-)
> I checked back to 7.3 and everything passed. I did a cvs update,
> configure, gmake, and regression run for each branch.
[ digs a bit deeper... ] Actually, it appears
Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Hm. One of the main problems I found was incorrect results for
> > LONGLONG_MIN (-2^63). I'm rather tempted to add a test case for
> > that to the int8 regression test and see if any platforms fail ;-)
>
> Done ... let me know whether the back branches still pass r
I wrote:
> Hm. One of the main problems I found was incorrect results for
> LONGLONG_MIN (-2^63). I'm rather tempted to add a test case for
> that to the int8 regression test and see if any platforms fail ;-)
Done ... let me know whether the back branches still pass regression
for you ;-)
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > OK, snprintf.c fixed. I added a 'stream' and outlen parameter to all
> > the calls, and cleaned up the switch() statement that was outputing
> > twice. When we were outputing just to a string, it didn't matter, but
> > now that we are also outputting t
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> The problems are sufficiently bad that it might be a good idea to
>> backport the fixes into 8.0 and before as well --- but I note that
>> the ABI is different (pg_snprintf vs snprintf, etc) so this requires
>> a bit of investigation rather than just comm
Bruce Momjian writes:
> OK, snprintf.c fixed. I added a 'stream' and outlen parameter to all
> the calls, and cleaned up the switch() statement that was outputing
> twice. When we were outputing just to a string, it didn't matter, but
> now that we are also outputting to a stream, it does.
I fo
