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

Re: Strange interval arithmetic

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org>
Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Strange interval arithmetic
Date: 2005-11-30 22:49:53
Message-ID: 1947.1133390993@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org> writes:
> I suppose if we check for LONG_MAX then we should also check
> for LONG_MIN.

s/should/must/, which makes the code even more complicated, in order to
buy what exactly?

> I don't know if any systems might set ERANGE in a non-error situation.

The SUS saith
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/strtol.html

	The strtol() function will not change the setting of errno if
	successful.

Perhaps more to the point, we've been doing it that way (errno test
only) for many years without complaints.  Adding a test on the return
value is venturing into less charted waters.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Michael FuhrDate: 2005-11-30 22:53:20
Subject: Re: Strange interval arithmetic
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2005-11-30 22:41:49
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Michael FuhrDate: 2005-11-30 22:53:20
Subject: Re: Strange interval arithmetic
Previous:From: Michael FuhrDate: 2005-11-30 22:39:16
Subject: Re: Strange interval arithmetic

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