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

Re: [PATCH] bugfix for int2vectorin

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Caleb Welton <cwelton(at)greenplum(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bugfix for int2vectorin
Date: 2009-12-02 05:24:04
Message-ID: 3274.1259731444@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Caleb Welton <cwelton(at)greenplum(dot)com> writes:
> On 12/1/09 7:38 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Under what circumstances would users (or anyone at all) be putting data into an int2vector?

> What exactly is your objection to having the int2arrayin parser handle its input conversion reasonably?

I'm trying to gauge what the actual use-case is for having a slightly
nicer error behavior.  The proposed patch adds another translatable
error string, which is no skin off my own nose but does create ongoing
work for our translation team.  And presumably, if we're going to fix
this, we ought to fix the about-equally-stupid parsing logic in oidvectorin.
While we're at it, should we trouble to detect overflow in int2vectorin?
You could spend quite a bit of time and code making these functions more
bulletproof, but I'm not convinced it's worth any work.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: rahimeh khodadadiDate: 2009-12-02 06:40:43
Subject: Re: Fwd: psql+krb5
Previous:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2009-12-02 05:18:34
Subject: Re: operator exclusion constraints

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