Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Also worth mentioning is bug #7766. > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/E1Tlli5-0007tR-HO@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Yeah, did you read that whole thread? The real issue here is going to be whether client-side code falls over on wider-than-32-bit counts. We can fix the backend and be pretty sure that we've found all the relevant places inside it, but we'll just be exporting the issue. I did look at libpq and noted that it doesn't seem to have any internal problem, because it returns the count to callers as a string (!). But what do you think are the odds that callers are using code that won't overflow? I'd bet on finding atoi() or suchlike in a lot of callers. Even if they thought to use strtoul(), unsigned long is not necessarily 64 bits wide. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
