Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS][PATCH] BUG #14486: Inserting and selecting interval have different constraints
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS][PATCH] BUG #14486: Inserting and selecting interval have different constraints |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5118.1483634907@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS][PATCH] BUG #14486: Inserting and selecting interval havedifferent constraints (Vitaly Burovoy <vitaly.burovoy@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS][PATCH] BUG #14486: Inserting and selectinginterval have different constraints
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Vitaly Burovoy <vitaly.burovoy@gmail.com> writes: >> I've written a patch which fixes that bug (in attachment). >> Should it be registered in the CF? > Oops. Forgot to attach the patch. Fixed. I suspect that many of these SAMESIGN() tests you've added are not actually adequate/useful. That's only sufficient when the output could be at most a factor of 2 out-of-range. If it could overflow past the sign bit then you need to work harder. (By the same token, the existing SAMESIGN test in interval2tm is wrong.) Possibly we should consider alternatives before plowing ahead in this direction, since adding guards to interval_in and interval computations doesn't help with oversize values that are already stored in a database. We could think about replacing interval2tm's output format with some other struct that uses a TimeOffset for hours and so cannot overflow. I'm not sure though how far the effects would propagate; it might be more work than we want to put into this. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: