| 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 22:49:53 |
| Message-ID: | 1947.1133390993@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:
> I suppose if we check for LONG_MAX then we should also check
> for LONG_MIN.
s/should/must/, which makes the code even more complicated, in order to
buy what exactly?
> I don't know if any systems might set ERANGE in a non-error situation.
The SUS saith
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/strtol.html
The strtol() function will not change the setting of errno if
successful.
Perhaps more to the point, we've been doing it that way (errno test
only) for many years without complaints. Adding a test on the return
value is venturing into less charted waters.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2005-11-30 22:53:20 | Re: Strange interval arithmetic |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-11-30 22:41:49 | Re: [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2005-11-30 22:53:20 | Re: Strange interval arithmetic |
| Previous Message | Michael Fuhr | 2005-11-30 22:39:16 | Re: Strange interval arithmetic |