Re: [HACKERS] Fix number skipping in to_number

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Oliver Ford <ojford(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Fix number skipping in to_number
Date: 2017-11-13 16:26:27
Message-ID: 11110.1510590387@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Oliver Ford <ojford(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 7:00 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> * Don't we need to fix the NUM_L (currency symbol) case in the
>> same manner? (The NUM_D and NUM_S cases are handled in
>> NUM_numpart_from_char and seem ok at a quick glance.)

> Yes you get the same skipping if you do:

> select to_number('12','L99');
> to_number
> -----------
> 2

> However, this case is not as easy to fix as you can't do a simple
> string comparison like with the group separator. The currency symbol
> for the locale can be " " but if we do a comparison, it won't match if
> the symbol specified is "$" or "£" (so will end up missing characters
> at the end of the supplied string). Could we apply the attached patch
> and then put fixing it for currency on the TODO list?

I don't follow your concern? If "$" is not the correct currency
symbol for the locale, we shouldn't accept it as a match to an L format.
Your patch is tightening what we will accept as a match to a G format,
so I don't see why you're concerned about backward compatibility in
one case but not the other.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Geoff Winkless 2017-11-13 16:41:59 Re: Migration to PGLister - After
Previous Message Oliver Ford 2017-11-13 16:18:44 Re: [HACKERS] Fix number skipping in to_number