From f6fecd30b0197aad65613c8ec02cd6ddf4346ec8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tom Lane Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 05:27:29 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Fix int8mul so that overflow check is applied correctly for INT64_IS_BUSTED case, per Florian Pflug. Not back-patched since it's unclear that anyone but me still cares ... --- src/backend/utils/adt/int8.c | 20 ++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/utils/adt/int8.c b/src/backend/utils/adt/int8.c index 226b018643..2583782ac1 100644 --- a/src/backend/utils/adt/int8.c +++ b/src/backend/utils/adt/int8.c @@ -575,15 +575,19 @@ int8mul(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS) * Since the division is likely much more expensive than the actual * multiplication, we'd like to skip it where possible. The best bang for * the buck seems to be to check whether both inputs are in the int32 - * range; if so, no overflow is possible. + * range; if so, no overflow is possible. (But that only works if we + * really have a 64-bit int64 datatype...) */ - if (!(arg1 == (int64) ((int32) arg1) && - arg2 == (int64) ((int32) arg2)) && - arg2 != 0 && - (result / arg2 != arg1 || (arg2 == -1 && arg1 < 0 && result < 0))) - ereport(ERROR, - (errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE), - errmsg("bigint out of range"))); +#ifndef INT64_IS_BUSTED + if (arg1 != (int64) ((int32) arg1) || arg2 != (int64) ((int32) arg2)) +#endif + { + if (arg2 != 0 && + (result / arg2 != arg1 || (arg2 == -1 && arg1 < 0 && result < 0))) + ereport(ERROR, + (errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE), + errmsg("bigint out of range"))); + } PG_RETURN_INT64(result); } -- 2.39.5