> On 6 Mar 2024, at 20:12, a.ima...@postgrespro.ru wrote: > I agree with the proposed changes in favor of backward compatibility.
I went ahead to pushed this after another look. I'm a bit hesitant to backpatch this since there are no reports against it, and I don't have good sense for how ECPG code is tested and maintained across minor version upgrades. If we want to I will of course do so, so please chime in in case there are different and more informed opinions. > Also, is it a big deal that the PGTYPESnumeric_to_long() function doesn't > exactly match the documentation, compared to PGTYPESnumeric_to_int()? It > handles underflow case separately and sets errno to PGTYPES_NUM_UNDERFLOW > additionally. Fixed as well. -- Daniel Gustafsson
