Re: Upcoming 8.0.2 Release

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, List pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Upcoming 8.0.2 Release
Date: 2005-03-25 19:08:48
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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
just adding

+ 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));
if (S_FM(suf))
return strlen(p_inout) - 1;
return 8;

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


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matthew T. O'Connor 2005-03-25 19:45:42 Re: pg_autovacuum not having enough suction ?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-03-25 18:38:39 Re: pg_dump issue : Cannot drop a non-existent(?) trigger