Re: Upcoming 8.0.2 Release
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Upcoming 8.0.2 Release |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3250.1111777728@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Upcoming 8.0.2 Release (Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz>) |
Ответы |
Re: Upcoming 8.0.2 Release
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.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? >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2005-02/msg00226.php > 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 case DCH_MONTH: + 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; else 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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: