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

Re: BUG #1671: Long interval string representation rejected

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: Mark Dilger <markdilger(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #1671: Long interval string representation rejected
Date: 2005-05-18 06:04:06
Message-ID: 17757.1116396246@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> Yeah, this seems bogus. It's not even clear to me why MAXDATELEN + 
> MAXDATEFIELDS is used as the size of that buffer in the first place. I 
> don't know the datetime code particularly well; perhaps someone who does 
> can shed some light on this?

My rule of thumb with the datetime code is that if it looks bogus,
it probably is :-(

There are a lot of fixed-size local buffers in that code.  The ones
used in output routines seem defensible since the string to be generated
is predictable.  The ones that are used for processing input are likely
wrong.  OTOH I'm not eager to throw a palloc into each of those code
paths ... can we avoid that?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Gregory L Miller-KramerDate: 2005-05-18 13:11:00
Subject: Re: BUG #1672: Postgres 8.0 doesn't return errors.
Previous:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2005-05-18 05:43:53
Subject: Re: BUG #1671: Long interval string representation rejected

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