On Sun, 28 Jul 2024 at 16:30, Joseph Koshakow wrote:
> Attached is an updated patch with your approach. I removed the 0 from
> the negative case because I think it was unnecessary, but happy to add
> it back in if I missed something.
I made a few adjustments and pushed this. I did keep the 0 - p
cf294e9f687 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Joseph Koshakow
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2024 15:06:09 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Fix overflow in pg_size_pretty
This commit removes an overflow from pg_size_pretty that causes
PG_INT64_MIN to by displayed with the bytes unit instead of the PB
unit.
---
src/backend/utils/
On Sun, 28 Jul 2024 at 13:10, Joseph Koshakow wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2024 at 8:00 PM David Rowley wrote:
> > What if we spelt it out the same way as pg_lltoa() does?
> >
> > i.e: uint64 usize = size < 0 ? 0 - (uint64) size : (uint64) size;
>
> My understanding of pg_lltoa() is that it produce
On Sat, Jul 27, 2024 at 8:00 PM David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Sun, 28 Jul 2024 at 11:06, Joseph Koshakow wrote:
>> > + uint64 usize = size < 0 ? (uint64) (-size) : (uint64) size;
>>
>> I think that the explicit test for PG_INT64_MIN is still required. If
>> `size` is equal to PG_INT64_MIN then `-siz
On Sun, 28 Jul 2024 at 11:06, Joseph Koshakow wrote:
> > + uint64 usize = size < 0 ? (uint64) (-size) : (uint64) size;
>
> I think that the explicit test for PG_INT64_MIN is still required. If
> `size` is equal to PG_INT64_MIN then `-size` will overflow. You end up
> with the correct behavior if `
On Sat, Jul 27, 2024 at 6:28 PM David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Sun, 28 Jul 2024 at 07:18, Joseph Koshakow wrote:
>> Attached is a patch that resolves an overflow in pg_size_pretty() that
>> resulted in unexpected behavior when PG_INT64_MIN was passed in as an
>> argument.
>
> Could we just fix this m
On Sun, 28 Jul 2024 at 07:18, Joseph Koshakow wrote:
> Attached is a patch that resolves an overflow in pg_size_pretty() that
> resulted in unexpected behavior when PG_INT64_MIN was passed in as an
> argument.
Could we just fix this more simply by assigning the absolute value of
the signed variab
e `::bigint` cast is omitted from my test.
Turns out it was just an order of operations issue. Fix is attached.
Thanks,
Joseph Koshakow
From 1224087ab4e13a107b51ac17c77e83dc7db37ef9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Joseph Koshakow
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2024 15:06:09 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Fix overflow in
2024 15:06:09 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Fix overflow in pg_size_pretty
This commit removes an overflow from pg_size_pretty that causes
PG_INT64_MIN to by displayed with the bytes unit instead of the PB
unit.
---
src/backend/utils/adt/dbsize.c | 3 ++-
src/include/common/int.h | 1
