Re: BUG #1671: Long interval string representation rejected

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: Mark Dilger <markdilger(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #1671: Long interval string representation rejected
Date: 2005-05-19 03:24:29
Message-ID: 28185.1116473069@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> There are a lot of fixed-size local buffers in that code. The ones
>> used in output routines seem defensible since the string to be generated
>> is predictable. The ones that are used for processing input are likely
>> wrong.

> I'm not sure offhand what the upper bounds on legal input for each of
> the datetime types is.

Well, if you allow for whitespace between tokens then it's immediately
clear that there is no fixed upper bound. Perhaps it would work to
downcase just one token at a time, so that the max buffer length equals
the max acceptable token?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2005-05-19 03:41:05 Re: BUG #1671: Long interval string representation rejected
Previous Message Neil Conway 2005-05-19 01:58:11 Re: Fw: Error when install