From: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, Sebastien FLAESCH <sf(at)4js(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: INTERVAL SECOND limited to 59 seconds? |
Date: | 2009-06-10 02:49:31 |
Message-ID: | 4A2F1F3B.1080308@cheapcomplexdevices.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> I'm inclined to say that these two cases are out of line with what
>> the rest of the code does and we should change them.
> ...
> Now, all three of these cases throw "invalid input syntax" in 8.3,
> so this is not a regression from released behavior. The question
> is does anyone think that these syntaxes should be valid? They're
> not legal per spec, for sure, and they seem pretty ambiguous to me.
Seems to do a sane thing for all sane inputs I threw at it.
It still accepts one odd input that 8.3 rejected:
regression=# select interval '1 1' hour;
Perhaps the additional patch below fixes that?
***************
*** 3022,3028 **** DecodeInterval(char **field, int *ftype, int nf, int range,
tm->tm_hour += val;
AdjustFractSeconds(fval, tm, fsec, SECS_PER_HOUR);
tmask = DTK_M(HOUR);
! type = DTK_DAY; /* set for next field */
break;
case DTK_DAY:
--- 3022,3029 ----
tm->tm_hour += val;
AdjustFractSeconds(fval, tm, fsec, SECS_PER_HOUR);
tmask = DTK_M(HOUR);
! if (range == (INTERVAL_MASK(DAY) | INTERVAL_MASK(HOUR)))
! type = DTK_DAY; /* set for next field */
break;
case DTK_DAY:
It also gives different answers than 8.3 for "select interval '1 1:' hour"
but I guess that's intended, right?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-10 02:59:19 | Re: INTERVAL SECOND limited to 59 seconds? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-09 22:59:27 | Re: INTERVAL SECOND limited to 59 seconds? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-10 02:59:19 | Re: INTERVAL SECOND limited to 59 seconds? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-10 01:30:05 | Re: Not quite a security hole in internal_in |