|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|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
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
+ 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));
return strlen(p_inout) - 1;
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
|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|