Re: abstime bug

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org>, jw <jw(at)sduept(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: abstime bug
Date: 2005-07-22 16:44:31
Message-ID: 6623.1122050671@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Michael Fuhr wrote:
>> I'd guess this is due to the 32-bitness of abstime. Those timestamps
>> are around the min and max values of a 32-bit timestamp based on the
>> traditional Unix epoch.

> Yea, I see the same thing in 8.0.X. I don't think abstime should be
> used in that date range, timestamp is a better solution.

It's still a bug though; if the value is out of range, abstimein should
reject it, not misconvert it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kris Jurka 2005-07-22 18:53:47 Re: BUG #1780: JDBC driver "setNull" throws for BLOB and CLOB
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-07-22 15:45:15 Re: BUG #1723: array_cat() bug when passed empty array