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 19:01:46 |
Message-ID: | 29998.1133377306@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 12:37:40PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Sure, send a patch ...
> Any preferences on an approach? The simplest and easiest to verify
> would be to raise an error for just this particular case; a TODO
> item might be to change how the string is parsed to allow values
> larger than LONG_MAX.
I think the latter would be a feature enhancement and therefore not
good material to back-patch. Just erroring out seems appropriate
for now.
> I see several calls to strtol() that aren't checked for overflow but
> that might not be relevant to this problem, so I'm thinking this patch
> ought not touch them. Maybe that's another TODO item.
If it's possible for them to be given overflowing input, they probably
ought to be checked.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-11-30 19:52:10 | Re: Using multi-row technique with COPY |
Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2005-11-30 18:59:35 | Re: [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2005-11-30 21:50:18 | Re: Strange interval arithmetic |
Previous Message | Michael Fuhr | 2005-11-30 18:28:07 | Re: Strange interval arithmetic |