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 | 6048.1483636296@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS][PATCH] BUG #14486: Inserting and selectinginterval have different constraints (Vitaly Burovoy <vitaly.burovoy@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS][PATCH] BUG #14486: Inserting and selectinginterval have different constraints
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Vitaly Burovoy <vitaly.burovoy@gmail.com> writes: > On 1/5/17, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> 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. > If values with overflow are already in a database, what do you expect > a new output function should fix? My point is that ideally, any value that can physically fit into struct Interval ought to be considered valid. The fact that interval_out can't cope is a bug in interval_out, which ideally we would fix without artificially restricting the range of the datatype. Now, the problem with that of course is that it's not only interval_out but multiple other places. But your proposed patch also requires touching nearly everything interval-related, so I'm not sure it has any advantage that way over the less restrictive answer. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: