When computing "0 - INT64_MIN", most platforms would report an
overflow error, which is correct. However, platforms without integer
overflow builtins or 128-bit integers would fail to spot the overflow,
and incorrectly return INT64_MIN.
Back-patch to all supported branches.
Patch be me. Thanks to Jian He for initial investigation, and Laurenz
Albe and Tom Lane for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCUNK-AZSD0jVdgkk0N%3DNcAXBWeAEX-QU9AnJPensikmdQ%40mail.gmail.com
*result = (int64) res;
return false;
#else
+ /*
+ * Note: overflow is also possible when a == 0 and b < 0 (specifically,
+ * when b == PG_INT64_MIN).
+ */
if ((a < 0 && b > 0 && a < PG_INT64_MIN + b) ||
- (a > 0 && b < 0 && a > PG_INT64_MAX + b))
+ (a >= 0 && b < 0 && a > PG_INT64_MAX + b))
{
*result = 0x5EED; /* to avoid spurious warnings */
return true;
select -('-9223372036854775808'::int8);
ERROR: bigint out of range
+select 0::int8 - '-9223372036854775808'::int8;
+ERROR: bigint out of range
select '9223372036854775800'::int8 + '9223372036854775800'::int8;
ERROR: bigint out of range
select '-9223372036854775800'::int8 + '-9223372036854775800'::int8;
select -('-9223372036854775807'::int8);
select -('-9223372036854775808'::int8);
+select 0::int8 - '-9223372036854775808'::int8;
select '9223372036854775800'::int8 + '9223372036854775800'::int8;
select '-9223372036854775800'::int8 + '-9223372036854775800'::int8;