Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

 Sign up
Appearance settings

Commit5917297

Browse files
committed
Fix overflow handling in plpgsql's integer FOR loops.
The test to exit the loop if the integer control value would overflowan int32 turns out not to work on some ICC versions, as it's dependenton the assumption that the compiler will execute the code as writtenrather than "optimize" it. ICC lacks any equivalent of gcc's -fwrapvswitch, so it was optimizing on the assumption of no integer overflow,and that breaks this. Rewrite into a form that in fact does notdo any overflowing computations.Per Tomas Vondra and buildfarm member fulmar. It's been like thisfor a long time, although it was not till we added a regression testcase covering the behavior (in commitdd2243f) that the problembecame apparent. Back-patch to all supported versions.Discussion:https://postgr.es/m/50562fdc-0876-9843-c883-15b8566c7511@2ndquadrant.com
1 parent12d18b4 commit5917297

File tree

1 file changed

+2
-2
lines changed

1 file changed

+2
-2
lines changed

‎src/pl/plpgsql/src/pl_exec.c

Lines changed: 2 additions & 2 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -2068,13 +2068,13 @@ exec_stmt_fori(PLpgSQL_execstate *estate, PLpgSQL_stmt_fori *stmt)
20682068
*/
20692069
if (stmt->reverse)
20702070
{
2071-
if ((int32) (loop_value-step_value)>loop_value)
2071+
if (loop_value< (PG_INT32_MIN+step_value))
20722072
break;
20732073
loop_value-=step_value;
20742074
}
20752075
else
20762076
{
2077-
if ((int32) (loop_value+step_value)<loop_value)
2077+
if (loop_value> (PG_INT32_MAX-step_value))
20782078
break;
20792079
loop_value+=step_value;
20802080
}

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)
[8]ページ先頭
©2009-2025 Movatter.jp