Re: BUG #1671: Long interval string representation rejected

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 05:30:15
Message-ID: 428C2467.6090904@samurai.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Tom Lane wrote:
> Sorry, s/downcased/downcased and null-terminated/. I have not read the
> parsing code in question lately, but offhand it seems like transferring
> one token at a time into a work buffer isn't a completely broken idea...

I wouldn't call it "broken", but I don't see how it could be done
without a significant refactoring of how datetime parsing is done, and
your handwaving has yet to convince me :) The gist of the current code is:

1. parse the input string into fields, which are arrays of pointers into
a working buffer, via ParseDateTime()
2. decode the fields as appropriate for the datatype via
DecodeInterval(), DecodeDatetime(), DecodeTimeOnly(), etc.

i.e. I don't see an easy way to do field decoding one field at a time.

-Neil

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-05-19 05:49:54 Re: BUG #1671: Long interval string representation rejected
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-05-19 05:05:54 Re: BUG #1671: Long interval string representation rejected