Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Upcoming 8.0.2 Release

From: Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,List pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Upcoming 8.0.2 Release
Date: 2005-03-25 23:48:49
Message-ID: 1111794529.2388.25.camel@petra (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 14:08 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz> writes:
> > On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 03:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I intend to look at that tomorrow.  Meanwhile, have you got a fix
> >> for bug#1500?
> >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2005-02/msg00226.php
> 
> > Sorry. Not yet. I haven't time today. Maybe next week :-(
> 
> I looked at this and found the problem is that dch_date() isn't
> defending itself against the possibility that tm->tm_mon is zero,
> as it well might be for an interval.  What do you think about
> just adding
> 
>         case DCH_MONTH:
> +           if (!tm->tm_mon)
> +               return 0;

> and similarly in each of the other case arms that use tm_mon?

Yes, I think you're right. It's because original code was for non-
interval 'tm' struct where is no problem with zeros.

> This would case "MON" to convert to a null string for intervals,
> which is probably as good as we can do.

Yes. The final solution will be remove all to_char(interval) stuff in
8.1.

Thanks Tom,

	Karel

-- 
Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Gavin SherryDate: 2005-03-26 00:02:39
Subject: Re: Missing segment 3 of index
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-03-25 23:46:58
Subject: Re: HeapTupleSatisfiesUpdate missing a bet?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group