* int8.c
* Internal 64-bit integer operations
*
- * Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2004, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
+ * Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2010, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
* Portions Copyright (c) 1994, Regents of the University of California
*
* IDENTIFICATION
- * $PostgreSQL: pgsql/src/backend/utils/adt/int8.c,v 1.55 2004/08/29 05:06:49 momjian Exp $
+ * $PostgreSQL: pgsql/src/backend/utils/adt/int8.c,v 1.77 2010/01/07 04:53:34 tgl Exp $
*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*/
#include "funcapi.h"
#include "libpq/pqformat.h"
+#include "nodes/nodes.h"
#include "utils/int8.h"
#define MAXINT8LEN 25
+#define SAMESIGN(a,b) (((a) < 0) == ((b) < 0))
+
typedef struct
{
int64 current;
int64 step;
} generate_series_fctx;
+
/***********************************************************************
**
** Routines for 64-bit integers.
int sign = 1;
/*
- * Do our own scan, rather than relying on sscanf which might be
- * broken for long long.
+ * Do our own scan, rather than relying on sscanf which might be broken
+ * for long long.
*/
/* skip leading spaces */
if (*ptr == '-')
{
ptr++;
- sign = -1;
/*
* Do an explicit check for INT64_MIN. Ugly though this is, it's
- * cleaner than trying to get the loop below to handle it
- * portably.
+ * cleaner than trying to get the loop below to handle it portably.
*/
-#ifndef INT64_IS_BUSTED
- if (strcmp(ptr, "9223372036854775808") == 0)
+ if (strncmp(ptr, "9223372036854775808", 19) == 0)
{
- *result = -INT64CONST(0x7fffffffffffffff) - 1;
- return true;
+ tmp = -INT64CONST(0x7fffffffffffffff) - 1;
+ ptr += 19;
+ goto gotdigits;
}
-#endif
+ sign = -1;
}
else if (*ptr == '+')
ptr++;
else
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_TEXT_REPRESENTATION),
- errmsg("invalid input syntax for type bigint: \"%s\"", str)));
+ errmsg("invalid input syntax for integer: \"%s\"",
+ str)));
}
/* process digits */
else
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
- errmsg("integer out of range")));
+ errmsg("value \"%s\" is out of range for type bigint",
+ str)));
}
tmp = newtmp;
}
+gotdigits:
+
/* allow trailing whitespace, but not other trailing chars */
while (*ptr != '\0' && isspace((unsigned char) *ptr))
ptr++;
else
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_TEXT_REPRESENTATION),
- errmsg("invalid input syntax for type bigint: \"%s\"", str)));
+ errmsg("invalid input syntax for integer: \"%s\"",
+ str)));
}
*result = (sign < 0) ? -tmp : tmp;
Datum
int8um(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
- int64 val = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
+ int64 arg = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
+ int64 result;
- PG_RETURN_INT64(-val);
+ result = -arg;
+ /* overflow check (needed for INT64_MIN) */
+ if (arg != 0 && SAMESIGN(result, arg))
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
+ errmsg("bigint out of range")));
+ PG_RETURN_INT64(result);
}
Datum
int8up(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
- int64 val = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
+ int64 arg = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
- PG_RETURN_INT64(val);
+ PG_RETURN_INT64(arg);
}
Datum
int8pl(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
- int64 val1 = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
- int64 val2 = PG_GETARG_INT64(1);
+ int64 arg1 = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
+ int64 arg2 = PG_GETARG_INT64(1);
+ int64 result;
- PG_RETURN_INT64(val1 + val2);
+ result = arg1 + arg2;
+
+ /*
+ * Overflow check. If the inputs are of different signs then their sum
+ * cannot overflow. If the inputs are of the same sign, their sum had
+ * better be that sign too.
+ */
+ if (SAMESIGN(arg1, arg2) && !SAMESIGN(result, arg1))
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
+ errmsg("bigint out of range")));
+ PG_RETURN_INT64(result);
}
Datum
int8mi(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
- int64 val1 = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
- int64 val2 = PG_GETARG_INT64(1);
+ int64 arg1 = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
+ int64 arg2 = PG_GETARG_INT64(1);
+ int64 result;
+
+ result = arg1 - arg2;
- PG_RETURN_INT64(val1 - val2);
+ /*
+ * Overflow check. If the inputs are of the same sign then their
+ * difference cannot overflow. If they are of different signs then the
+ * result should be of the same sign as the first input.
+ */
+ if (!SAMESIGN(arg1, arg2) && !SAMESIGN(result, arg1))
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
+ errmsg("bigint out of range")));
+ PG_RETURN_INT64(result);
}
Datum
int8mul(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
- int64 val1 = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
- int64 val2 = PG_GETARG_INT64(1);
+ int64 arg1 = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
+ int64 arg2 = PG_GETARG_INT64(1);
+ int64 result;
- PG_RETURN_INT64(val1 * val2);
+ result = arg1 * arg2;
+
+ /*
+ * Overflow check. We basically check to see if result / arg2 gives arg1
+ * again. There are two cases where this fails: arg2 = 0 (which cannot
+ * overflow) and arg1 = INT64_MIN, arg2 = -1 (where the division itself
+ * will overflow and thus incorrectly match).
+ *
+ * Since the division is likely much more expensive than the actual
+ * multiplication, we'd like to skip it where possible. The best bang for
+ * the buck seems to be to check whether both inputs are in the int32
+ * range; if so, no overflow is possible.
+ */
+ if (arg1 != (int64) ((int32) arg1) || arg2 != (int64) ((int32) arg2))
+ {
+ if (arg2 != 0 &&
+ (result / arg2 != arg1 || (arg2 == -1 && arg1 < 0 && result < 0)))
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
+ errmsg("bigint out of range")));
+ }
+ PG_RETURN_INT64(result);
}
Datum
int8div(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
- int64 val1 = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
- int64 val2 = PG_GETARG_INT64(1);
+ int64 arg1 = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
+ int64 arg2 = PG_GETARG_INT64(1);
+ int64 result;
- if (val2 == 0)
+ if (arg2 == 0)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_DIVISION_BY_ZERO),
errmsg("division by zero")));
- PG_RETURN_INT64(val1 / val2);
+ result = arg1 / arg2;
+
+ /*
+ * Overflow check. The only possible overflow case is for arg1 =
+ * INT64_MIN, arg2 = -1, where the correct result is -INT64_MIN, which
+ * can't be represented on a two's-complement machine. Most machines
+ * produce INT64_MIN but it seems some produce zero.
+ */
+ if (arg2 == -1 && arg1 < 0 && result <= 0)
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
+ errmsg("bigint out of range")));
+ PG_RETURN_INT64(result);
}
/* int8abs()
int8abs(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
int64 arg1 = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
+ int64 result;
- PG_RETURN_INT64((arg1 < 0) ? -arg1 : arg1);
+ result = (arg1 < 0) ? -arg1 : arg1;
+ /* overflow check (needed for INT64_MIN) */
+ if (result < 0)
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
+ errmsg("bigint out of range")));
+ PG_RETURN_INT64(result);
}
/* int8mod()
Datum
int8mod(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
- int64 val1 = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
- int64 val2 = PG_GETARG_INT64(1);
- int64 result;
+ int64 arg1 = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
+ int64 arg2 = PG_GETARG_INT64(1);
- if (val2 == 0)
+ if (arg2 == 0)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_DIVISION_BY_ZERO),
errmsg("division by zero")));
+ /* No overflow is possible */
- result = val1 / val2;
- result *= val2;
- result = val1 - result;
-
- PG_RETURN_INT64(result);
+ PG_RETURN_INT64(arg1 % arg2);
}
Datum
int8inc(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
- int64 arg = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
+ /*
+ * When int8 is pass-by-reference, we provide this special case to avoid
+ * palloc overhead for COUNT(): when called from nodeAgg, we know that the
+ * argument is modifiable local storage, so just update it in-place. (If
+ * int8 is pass-by-value, then of course this is useless as well as
+ * incorrect, so just ifdef it out.)
+ */
+#ifndef USE_FLOAT8_BYVAL /* controls int8 too */
+ if (fcinfo->context &&
+ (IsA(fcinfo->context, AggState) ||
+ IsA(fcinfo->context, WindowAggState)))
+ {
+ int64 *arg = (int64 *) PG_GETARG_POINTER(0);
+ int64 result;
+
+ result = *arg + 1;
+ /* Overflow check */
+ if (result < 0 && *arg > 0)
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
+ errmsg("bigint out of range")));
+
+ *arg = result;
+ PG_RETURN_POINTER(arg);
+ }
+ else
+#endif
+ {
+ /* Not called by nodeAgg, so just do it the dumb way */
+ int64 arg = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
+ int64 result;
- PG_RETURN_INT64(arg + 1);
+ result = arg + 1;
+ /* Overflow check */
+ if (result < 0 && arg > 0)
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
+ errmsg("bigint out of range")));
+
+ PG_RETURN_INT64(result);
+ }
+}
+
+/*
+ * These functions are exactly like int8inc but are used for aggregates that
+ * count only non-null values. Since the functions are declared strict,
+ * the null checks happen before we ever get here, and all we need do is
+ * increment the state value. We could actually make these pg_proc entries
+ * point right at int8inc, but then the opr_sanity regression test would
+ * complain about mismatched entries for a built-in function.
+ */
+
+Datum
+int8inc_any(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
+{
+ return int8inc(fcinfo);
}
+Datum
+int8inc_float8_float8(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
+{
+ return int8inc(fcinfo);
+}
+
+
Datum
int8larger(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
- int64 val1 = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
- int64 val2 = PG_GETARG_INT64(1);
+ int64 arg1 = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
+ int64 arg2 = PG_GETARG_INT64(1);
int64 result;
- result = ((val1 > val2) ? val1 : val2);
+ result = ((arg1 > arg2) ? arg1 : arg2);
PG_RETURN_INT64(result);
}
Datum
int8smaller(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
- int64 val1 = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
- int64 val2 = PG_GETARG_INT64(1);
+ int64 arg1 = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
+ int64 arg2 = PG_GETARG_INT64(1);
int64 result;
- result = ((val1 < val2) ? val1 : val2);
+ result = ((arg1 < arg2) ? arg1 : arg2);
PG_RETURN_INT64(result);
}
Datum
int84pl(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
- int64 val1 = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
- int32 val2 = PG_GETARG_INT32(1);
+ int64 arg1 = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
+ int32 arg2 = PG_GETARG_INT32(1);
+ int64 result;
- PG_RETURN_INT64(val1 + val2);
+ result = arg1 + arg2;
+
+ /*
+ * Overflow check. If the inputs are of different signs then their sum
+ * cannot overflow. If the inputs are of the same sign, their sum had
+ * better be that sign too.
+ */
+ if (SAMESIGN(arg1, arg2) && !SAMESIGN(result, arg1))
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
+ errmsg("bigint out of range")));
+ PG_RETURN_INT64(result);
}
Datum
int84mi(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
- int64 val1 = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
- int32 val2 = PG_GETARG_INT32(1);
+ int64 arg1 = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
+ int32 arg2 = PG_GETARG_INT32(1);
+ int64 result;
+
+ result = arg1 - arg2;
- PG_RETURN_INT64(val1 - val2);
+ /*
+ * Overflow check. If the inputs are of the same sign then their
+ * difference cannot overflow. If they are of different signs then the
+ * result should be of the same sign as the first input.
+ */
+ if (!SAMESIGN(arg1, arg2) && !SAMESIGN(result, arg1))
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
+ errmsg("bigint out of range")));
+ PG_RETURN_INT64(result);
}
Datum
int84mul(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
- int64 val1 = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
- int32 val2 = PG_GETARG_INT32(1);
+ int64 arg1 = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
+ int32 arg2 = PG_GETARG_INT32(1);
+ int64 result;
- PG_RETURN_INT64(val1 * val2);
+ result = arg1 * arg2;
+
+ /*
+ * Overflow check. We basically check to see if result / arg1 gives arg2
+ * again. There is one case where this fails: arg1 = 0 (which cannot
+ * overflow).
+ *
+ * Since the division is likely much more expensive than the actual
+ * multiplication, we'd like to skip it where possible. The best bang for
+ * the buck seems to be to check whether both inputs are in the int32
+ * range; if so, no overflow is possible.
+ */
+ if (arg1 != (int64) ((int32) arg1) &&
+ result / arg1 != arg2)
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
+ errmsg("bigint out of range")));
+ PG_RETURN_INT64(result);
}
Datum
int84div(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
- int64 val1 = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
- int32 val2 = PG_GETARG_INT32(1);
+ int64 arg1 = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
+ int32 arg2 = PG_GETARG_INT32(1);
+ int64 result;
- if (val2 == 0)
+ if (arg2 == 0)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_DIVISION_BY_ZERO),
errmsg("division by zero")));
- PG_RETURN_INT64(val1 / val2);
+ result = arg1 / arg2;
+
+ /*
+ * Overflow check. The only possible overflow case is for arg1 =
+ * INT64_MIN, arg2 = -1, where the correct result is -INT64_MIN, which
+ * can't be represented on a two's-complement machine. Most machines
+ * produce INT64_MIN but it seems some produce zero.
+ */
+ if (arg2 == -1 && arg1 < 0 && result <= 0)
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
+ errmsg("bigint out of range")));
+ PG_RETURN_INT64(result);
}
Datum
int48pl(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
- int32 val1 = PG_GETARG_INT32(0);
- int64 val2 = PG_GETARG_INT64(1);
+ int32 arg1 = PG_GETARG_INT32(0);
+ int64 arg2 = PG_GETARG_INT64(1);
+ int64 result;
+
+ result = arg1 + arg2;
- PG_RETURN_INT64(val1 + val2);
+ /*
+ * Overflow check. If the inputs are of different signs then their sum
+ * cannot overflow. If the inputs are of the same sign, their sum had
+ * better be that sign too.
+ */
+ if (SAMESIGN(arg1, arg2) && !SAMESIGN(result, arg1))
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
+ errmsg("bigint out of range")));
+ PG_RETURN_INT64(result);
}
Datum
int48mi(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
- int32 val1 = PG_GETARG_INT32(0);
- int64 val2 = PG_GETARG_INT64(1);
+ int32 arg1 = PG_GETARG_INT32(0);
+ int64 arg2 = PG_GETARG_INT64(1);
+ int64 result;
+
+ result = arg1 - arg2;
- PG_RETURN_INT64(val1 - val2);
+ /*
+ * Overflow check. If the inputs are of the same sign then their
+ * difference cannot overflow. If they are of different signs then the
+ * result should be of the same sign as the first input.
+ */
+ if (!SAMESIGN(arg1, arg2) && !SAMESIGN(result, arg1))
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
+ errmsg("bigint out of range")));
+ PG_RETURN_INT64(result);
}
Datum
int48mul(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
- int32 val1 = PG_GETARG_INT32(0);
- int64 val2 = PG_GETARG_INT64(1);
+ int32 arg1 = PG_GETARG_INT32(0);
+ int64 arg2 = PG_GETARG_INT64(1);
+ int64 result;
- PG_RETURN_INT64(val1 * val2);
+ result = arg1 * arg2;
+
+ /*
+ * Overflow check. We basically check to see if result / arg2 gives arg1
+ * again. There is one case where this fails: arg2 = 0 (which cannot
+ * overflow).
+ *
+ * Since the division is likely much more expensive than the actual
+ * multiplication, we'd like to skip it where possible. The best bang for
+ * the buck seems to be to check whether both inputs are in the int32
+ * range; if so, no overflow is possible.
+ */
+ if (arg2 != (int64) ((int32) arg2) &&
+ result / arg2 != arg1)
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
+ errmsg("bigint out of range")));
+ PG_RETURN_INT64(result);
}
Datum
int48div(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
- int32 val1 = PG_GETARG_INT32(0);
- int64 val2 = PG_GETARG_INT64(1);
+ int32 arg1 = PG_GETARG_INT32(0);
+ int64 arg2 = PG_GETARG_INT64(1);
- if (val2 == 0)
+ if (arg2 == 0)
+ {
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_DIVISION_BY_ZERO),
errmsg("division by zero")));
+ /* ensure compiler realizes we mustn't reach the division (gcc bug) */
+ PG_RETURN_NULL();
+ }
+
+ /* No overflow is possible */
+ PG_RETURN_INT64((int64) arg1 / arg2);
+}
+
+Datum
+int82pl(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
+{
+ int64 arg1 = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
+ int16 arg2 = PG_GETARG_INT16(1);
+ int64 result;
- PG_RETURN_INT64(val1 / val2);
+ result = arg1 + arg2;
+
+ /*
+ * Overflow check. If the inputs are of different signs then their sum
+ * cannot overflow. If the inputs are of the same sign, their sum had
+ * better be that sign too.
+ */
+ if (SAMESIGN(arg1, arg2) && !SAMESIGN(result, arg1))
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
+ errmsg("bigint out of range")));
+ PG_RETURN_INT64(result);
+}
+
+Datum
+int82mi(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
+{
+ int64 arg1 = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
+ int16 arg2 = PG_GETARG_INT16(1);
+ int64 result;
+
+ result = arg1 - arg2;
+
+ /*
+ * Overflow check. If the inputs are of the same sign then their
+ * difference cannot overflow. If they are of different signs then the
+ * result should be of the same sign as the first input.
+ */
+ if (!SAMESIGN(arg1, arg2) && !SAMESIGN(result, arg1))
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
+ errmsg("bigint out of range")));
+ PG_RETURN_INT64(result);
+}
+
+Datum
+int82mul(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
+{
+ int64 arg1 = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
+ int16 arg2 = PG_GETARG_INT16(1);
+ int64 result;
+
+ result = arg1 * arg2;
+
+ /*
+ * Overflow check. We basically check to see if result / arg1 gives arg2
+ * again. There is one case where this fails: arg1 = 0 (which cannot
+ * overflow).
+ *
+ * Since the division is likely much more expensive than the actual
+ * multiplication, we'd like to skip it where possible. The best bang for
+ * the buck seems to be to check whether both inputs are in the int32
+ * range; if so, no overflow is possible.
+ */
+ if (arg1 != (int64) ((int32) arg1) &&
+ result / arg1 != arg2)
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
+ errmsg("bigint out of range")));
+ PG_RETURN_INT64(result);
+}
+
+Datum
+int82div(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
+{
+ int64 arg1 = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
+ int16 arg2 = PG_GETARG_INT16(1);
+ int64 result;
+
+ if (arg2 == 0)
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_DIVISION_BY_ZERO),
+ errmsg("division by zero")));
+
+ result = arg1 / arg2;
+
+ /*
+ * Overflow check. The only possible overflow case is for arg1 =
+ * INT64_MIN, arg2 = -1, where the correct result is -INT64_MIN, which
+ * can't be represented on a two's-complement machine. Most machines
+ * produce INT64_MIN but it seems some produce zero.
+ */
+ if (arg2 == -1 && arg1 < 0 && result <= 0)
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
+ errmsg("bigint out of range")));
+ PG_RETURN_INT64(result);
+}
+
+Datum
+int28pl(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
+{
+ int16 arg1 = PG_GETARG_INT16(0);
+ int64 arg2 = PG_GETARG_INT64(1);
+ int64 result;
+
+ result = arg1 + arg2;
+
+ /*
+ * Overflow check. If the inputs are of different signs then their sum
+ * cannot overflow. If the inputs are of the same sign, their sum had
+ * better be that sign too.
+ */
+ if (SAMESIGN(arg1, arg2) && !SAMESIGN(result, arg1))
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
+ errmsg("bigint out of range")));
+ PG_RETURN_INT64(result);
+}
+
+Datum
+int28mi(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
+{
+ int16 arg1 = PG_GETARG_INT16(0);
+ int64 arg2 = PG_GETARG_INT64(1);
+ int64 result;
+
+ result = arg1 - arg2;
+
+ /*
+ * Overflow check. If the inputs are of the same sign then their
+ * difference cannot overflow. If they are of different signs then the
+ * result should be of the same sign as the first input.
+ */
+ if (!SAMESIGN(arg1, arg2) && !SAMESIGN(result, arg1))
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
+ errmsg("bigint out of range")));
+ PG_RETURN_INT64(result);
+}
+
+Datum
+int28mul(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
+{
+ int16 arg1 = PG_GETARG_INT16(0);
+ int64 arg2 = PG_GETARG_INT64(1);
+ int64 result;
+
+ result = arg1 * arg2;
+
+ /*
+ * Overflow check. We basically check to see if result / arg2 gives arg1
+ * again. There is one case where this fails: arg2 = 0 (which cannot
+ * overflow).
+ *
+ * Since the division is likely much more expensive than the actual
+ * multiplication, we'd like to skip it where possible. The best bang for
+ * the buck seems to be to check whether both inputs are in the int32
+ * range; if so, no overflow is possible.
+ */
+ if (arg2 != (int64) ((int32) arg2) &&
+ result / arg2 != arg1)
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
+ errmsg("bigint out of range")));
+ PG_RETURN_INT64(result);
+}
+
+Datum
+int28div(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
+{
+ int16 arg1 = PG_GETARG_INT16(0);
+ int64 arg2 = PG_GETARG_INT64(1);
+
+ if (arg2 == 0)
+ {
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_DIVISION_BY_ZERO),
+ errmsg("division by zero")));
+ /* ensure compiler realizes we mustn't reach the division (gcc bug) */
+ PG_RETURN_NULL();
+ }
+
+ /* No overflow is possible */
+ PG_RETURN_INT64((int64) arg1 / arg2);
}
/* Binary arithmetics
Datum
int48(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
- int32 val = PG_GETARG_INT32(0);
+ int32 arg = PG_GETARG_INT32(0);
- PG_RETURN_INT64((int64) val);
+ PG_RETURN_INT64((int64) arg);
}
Datum
int84(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
- int64 val = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
+ int64 arg = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
int32 result;
- result = (int32) val;
+ result = (int32) arg;
/* Test for overflow by reverse-conversion. */
- if ((int64) result != val)
+ if ((int64) result != arg)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
errmsg("integer out of range")));
Datum
int28(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
- int16 val = PG_GETARG_INT16(0);
+ int16 arg = PG_GETARG_INT16(0);
- PG_RETURN_INT64((int64) val);
+ PG_RETURN_INT64((int64) arg);
}
Datum
int82(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
- int64 val = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
+ int64 arg = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
int16 result;
- result = (int16) val;
+ result = (int16) arg;
/* Test for overflow by reverse-conversion. */
- if ((int64) result != val)
+ if ((int64) result != arg)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
- errmsg("integer out of range")));
+ errmsg("smallint out of range")));
PG_RETURN_INT16(result);
}
Datum
i8tod(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
- int64 val = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
+ int64 arg = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
float8 result;
- result = val;
+ result = arg;
PG_RETURN_FLOAT8(result);
}
Datum
dtoi8(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
- float8 val = PG_GETARG_FLOAT8(0);
+ float8 arg = PG_GETARG_FLOAT8(0);
int64 result;
- /* Round val to nearest integer (but it's still in float form) */
- val = rint(val);
+ /* Round arg to nearest integer (but it's still in float form) */
+ arg = rint(arg);
/*
- * Does it fit in an int64? Avoid assuming that we have handy
- * constants defined for the range boundaries, instead test for
- * overflow by reverse-conversion.
+ * Does it fit in an int64? Avoid assuming that we have handy constants
+ * defined for the range boundaries, instead test for overflow by
+ * reverse-conversion.
*/
- result = (int64) val;
+ result = (int64) arg;
- if ((float8) result != val)
+ if ((float8) result != arg)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
- errmsg("integer out of range")));
+ errmsg("bigint out of range")));
PG_RETURN_INT64(result);
}
Datum
i8tof(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
- int64 val = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
+ int64 arg = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
float4 result;
- result = val;
+ result = arg;
PG_RETURN_FLOAT4(result);
}
Datum
ftoi8(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
- float4 val = PG_GETARG_FLOAT4(0);
+ float4 arg = PG_GETARG_FLOAT4(0);
int64 result;
- float8 dval;
+ float8 darg;
- /* Round val to nearest integer (but it's still in float form) */
- dval = rint(val);
+ /* Round arg to nearest integer (but it's still in float form) */
+ darg = rint(arg);
/*
- * Does it fit in an int64? Avoid assuming that we have handy
- * constants defined for the range boundaries, instead test for
- * overflow by reverse-conversion.
+ * Does it fit in an int64? Avoid assuming that we have handy constants
+ * defined for the range boundaries, instead test for overflow by
+ * reverse-conversion.
*/
- result = (int64) dval;
+ result = (int64) darg;
- if ((float8) result != dval)
+ if ((float8) result != darg)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
- errmsg("integer out of range")));
+ errmsg("bigint out of range")));
PG_RETURN_INT64(result);
}
Datum
i8tooid(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
- int64 val = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
+ int64 arg = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
Oid result;
- result = (Oid) val;
+ result = (Oid) arg;
/* Test for overflow by reverse-conversion. */
- if ((int64) result != val)
+ if ((int64) result != arg)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
errmsg("OID out of range")));
Datum
oidtoi8(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
- Oid val = PG_GETARG_OID(0);
-
- PG_RETURN_INT64((int64) val);
-}
-
-Datum
-text_int8(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
-{
- text *str = PG_GETARG_TEXT_P(0);
- int len;
- char *s;
- Datum result;
-
- len = (VARSIZE(str) - VARHDRSZ);
- s = palloc(len + 1);
- memcpy(s, VARDATA(str), len);
- *(s + len) = '\0';
-
- result = DirectFunctionCall1(int8in, CStringGetDatum(s));
-
- pfree(s);
-
- return result;
-}
-
-Datum
-int8_text(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
-{
- /* val is int64, but easier to leave it as Datum */
- Datum val = PG_GETARG_DATUM(0);
- char *s;
- int len;
- text *result;
-
- s = DatumGetCString(DirectFunctionCall1(int8out, val));
- len = strlen(s);
-
- result = (text *) palloc(VARHDRSZ + len);
-
- VARATT_SIZEP(result) = len + VARHDRSZ;
- memcpy(VARDATA(result), s, len);
-
- pfree(s);
+ Oid arg = PG_GETARG_OID(0);
- PG_RETURN_TEXT_P(result);
+ PG_RETURN_INT64((int64) arg);
}
/*
if (step == 0)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE),
- errmsg("step size may not equal zero")));
+ errmsg("step size cannot equal zero")));
/* create a function context for cross-call persistence */
funcctx = SRF_FIRSTCALL_INIT();
/*
- * switch to memory context appropriate for multiple function
- * calls
+ * switch to memory context appropriate for multiple function calls
*/
oldcontext = MemoryContextSwitchTo(funcctx->multi_call_memory_ctx);
funcctx = SRF_PERCALL_SETUP();
/*
- * get the saved state and use current as the result for this
- * iteration
+ * get the saved state and use current as the result for this iteration
*/
fctx = funcctx->user_fctx;
result = fctx->current;
projects / postgresql / blobdiff