Re: BUG #1671: Long interval string representation rejected

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Mark Dilger <markdilger(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #1671: Long interval string representation rejected
Date: 2005-05-23 14:02:32
Message-ID: 4291E278.1070903@samurai.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Neil Conway wrote:
> I think we _can_ do it that way, it's just a question of whether that is
> the best approach. I think the solution I outlined before would work
> fine: pass the length of the working buffer to ParseDateTime(), and
> reject the input only if the parsing process actually requires more
> working space than was provided. [...]

> Or we could rewrite how we do parsing, which seems to be what you're
> suggesting.

Any thoughts on this, Tom? If you're planning on doing the rewrite you
described, that's fine; alternatively I'm happy to implement the fix
that I described above.

-Neil

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-05-23 14:09:12 Re: BUG #1671: Long interval string representation rejected
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-05-23 13:54:38 Re: BUG #1677: Bug in select with Union