On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 7:36 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:21 PM, Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote: >> + /* overflow check (needed for INT64_MIN) */ >> + if (lval != 0 && (*retval < 0 == lval < 0)) >> >> Why not use "if (lval == INT64_MIN)" instead of this complicated condition? >> If it is really needed for some reason, I think that a comment could help. > > Checking for PG_INT64_MIN only would be fine as well, so let's do so. > I thought honestly that we had better check if the result and the left > argument are not of the same sign, but well.
Committed and back-patched to 9.5. Doesn't apply further back. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
