RangeError when querying for big number using #where in Rails 4.2

Question

I've just upgraded an old app from Rails 3.0 to 4.2 and now it is impossible to query the database for very long IDs.

Rails 3

Product.where(associated_id: 1311344470881970878875083923).first
=> nil

Rails 4.2.3

Product.where(associated_id: 1311344470881970878875083923).first
RangeError: 1311344470881970878875083923 is out of range for ActiveRecord::ConnectionAdapters::PostgreSQL::OID::Integer with limit 8
from ~/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.2.1@gemset/gems/activerecord-4.2.3/lib/active_record/type/integer.rb:45:in `ensure_in_range'

I'd expect that the finder returns nothing in Rails 4.2.3 as well in such a case. It's just searching for results, we don't need to call ensure_in_range.

UPDATE: however, the following works fine (it may serve as a workaround):

Product.find_by(associated_id: 1311344470881970878875083923)

It works because find_by is implemented as below:

def find_by(*args)
  where(*args).take
rescue RangeError
  nil
end

http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/FinderMethods.html#method-i-find_by

Unfortunately a similar method for returning all results is missing in ActiveRecord 4.2.3

def find_all_by(*args)
  where(*args).load
rescue RangeError
  none
end

Affection

thats a pretty big number for an integer! – Groundsel

Answer 1

1311344470881970878875083923 ist way out of the INT Range in postgres. Every Datatype has its own range. a Integer normally presenting 4 bytes, which means there are 4294967294 different values. (-2147483647 till [phone] and a 0).

if you need those big numbers as the object_id, make sure to use a bigint. he can handle those.

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/datatype-numeric.html

edit

as on your edit, you can extend your ActiveRecord with ease

# config/initializer/active_record.rb

class ActiveRecord::Base     
  def self.find_all_by(*args)
      where(*args).load
    rescue RangeError
      nil
  end
end

Groundsel

This really doesn't bring anything to this discussion. See the "UPDATE" section in my first post. What we're really missing is something like find_all_by . It doesn't matter what kind of number I'm sending to this query, it should not fail with such an error when I just want to find something in the database. – Affection

so why dont you implement your own "find_all" method? – Groundsel

Of course I can extend AR with my method. I was looking for some hints about implementing it using unmodified AR. – Affection