From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>, Srinivas Naik <naik(dot)srinu(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Reg: SQL Query for Postgres 8.4.3 |
Date: | 2010-05-04 15:07:47 |
Message-ID: | 12604.1272985667@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Kevin Grittner
> <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
>> We have maintained nonstandard behavior in the past for
>> compatibility reasons, so it's a fair question; however, I'm
>> inclined toward the standard on this one.
> In a case like this, it seems unlikely that someone would be counting
> on a negative value to throw an error, so I tend to regard doing
> something else as an extension of the standard rather than a deviation
> from it. But I don't have strong feelings about it.
The reason we changed it is that our other versions of substring()
already had the spec-required behavior of throwing error for negative
length. Only the bit/varbit implementation was out of step.
The OP did not state that this behavioral change broke his application,
anyway. I suspect the actual subtext is that he's poking into the
vulnerability report that was issued against the unpatched code.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-05-04 15:10:26 | Re: Pause/Resume feature for Hot Standby |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-05-04 14:42:40 | Re: Reg: SQL Query for Postgres 8.4.3 |