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?
> 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
+ if (!tm->tm_mon)
+ return 0;
strcpy(workbuff, months_full[tm->tm_mon - 1]);
sprintf(inout, "%*s", S_FM(suf) ? 0 : -9, str_toupper(workbuff));
return strlen(p_inout) - 1;
and similarly in each of the other case arms that use tm_mon?
This would case "MON" to convert to a null string for intervals,
which is probably as good as we can do.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Matthew T. O'Connor||Date: 2005-03-25 19:45:42|
|Subject: Re: pg_autovacuum not having enough suction ?|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-03-25 18:38:39|
|Subject: Re: pg_dump issue : Cannot drop a non-existent(?) trigger |