From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #17795: Erroneous parsing of floating-poing components in DecodeISO8601Interval() |
Date: | 2023-02-20 21:59:24 |
Message-ID: | 3801960.1676930364@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 20.02.2023 02:40, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There are a couple of other places where datetime.c is using strtod()
>> to parse what it expects to be a fractional value. I'm inclined to
>> just barf if the result is out of range. Maybe we shouldn't back-patch
>> that aspect into v15, not sure.
> I could not find a way to pass the e-notation there.
True, I was thinking of this as future-proofing not as closing any
live loophole.
> Also, the comment added makes me wonder, whether ".1e-10"
> (e.g., in "1.1e-10") can be considered bogus too. I would say so
> (if we are going to just add a fraction produced by ParseFraction()
> to some integer part later, we still get the wrong result
> (for the scientific notation)), and if we want to have
> a consistent syntax, maybe it's worth to check an input string for 'e'/'E',
> but if not, then maybe leave it alone. I would prefer the latter for now.
Fair enough. I pushed the ParseISO8601Number fix without
touching the other two places.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-02-20 22:49:25 | Re: BUG #17800: ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE fails to detect incompatible fields that leads to a server crash |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2023-02-20 20:58:36 | Re: Query run in 27s with 15.2 vs 37ms with 14.6 |