David Rowley <[email protected]> 于2026年3月25日周三 10:09写道： > > On Wed, 25 Mar 2026 at 13:31, David Rowley <[email protected]> wrote: > > Obviously, we don't want to back-patch anything that would cause a > > user-visible change in the return value of hash_numeric(), so I've > > been experimenting to see if there's any way to get PostgreSQL to > > output any value from hash_numeric() larger than 2^31 and I've been > > unable to. I tried: > > I was experimenting with a less risky fix by having the datum_image > functions force the sign-extended representation of the Datum before > hashing or comparing. > > Attached is a quick PoC of what that would look like. It does fix the > reported problem. But it is a hack and doesn't fix the root cause of > the issue. > > Despite the hackiness, I feel this might be better than the > whack-a-mole approach of just fixing incorrect usages of the > PG_RETURN_* macros as and when we find them.
No objection from me. It seems no users have complained about hash_numberic(), and except for this reported issue, no internal errors have been reported due to hash_numberic(). -- Thanks, Tender Wang
