Re: Strange behavior with leap dates and centuries BC

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Bernd Helmle
Тема Re: Strange behavior with leap dates and centuries BC
Дата
Msg-id 5DA9977D08F9A8407D83A128@imhotep.credativ.de
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Strange behavior with leap dates and centuries BC  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: Strange behavior with leap dates and centuries BC  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
--On Montag, Februar 25, 2008 12:00:05 -0500 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 
wrote:

> regression=# select '0001-02-28 BC'::date + 1;
>    ?column?
> ---------------
>  0001-02-29 BC
> (1 row)
>
> regression=# select '0002-02-28 BC'::date + 1;
>    ?column?
> ---------------
>  0002-03-01 BC
> (1 row)

I stepped through the code in datetime.c and it seems the culprit here is 
DecodeDate(). It get's the date string from DecodeDateTime(), but without 
the 'BC' century notation. However, it then performs the following check
/* there is no year zero in AD/BC notation; i.e. "1 BC" == year 0 */if (bc){    if (tm->tm_year > 0)        tm->tm_year
=-(tm->tm_year - 1);    else        ereport(ERROR,                (errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_DATETIME_FORMAT),
    errmsg("inconsistent use of year %04d and \"BC\"",                        tm->tm_year)));}
 

bc never becames true during parsing and the final check for the leap date 
fails:
/* We don't want to hint about DateStyle for Feb 29 */if (tm->tm_mday > day_tab[isleap(tm->tm_year)][tm->tm_mon - 1]){
 return DTERR_FIELD_OVERFLOW;}
 

Maybe that helps a little bit.

--  Thanks
                   Bernd


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Gregory Stark
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Questions about indexes with text_pattern_ops
Следующее
От: Peter Eisentraut
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: build environment: a different makefile