| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vitaly Burovoy <vitaly(dot)burovoy(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Integer overflow in timestamp[tz]_part() and date/time boundaries check |
| Date: | 2016-03-16 17:24:16 |
| Message-ID: | 6489.1458149056@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> My feeling is we ought to preserve the old behavior here, which would
> involve making JULIAN_MAXYEAR_FOR_TIMESTAMPS format-dependent and
> adjusting the float values for the two derived constants; not much of a
> problem code-wise. I think though that it would break quite a number of
> the proposed new regression tests for the float case. TBH, I thought
> the number of added test cases was rather excessive anyway, so I wouldn't
> have a problem with just leaving out whichever ones don't pass with both
> build options.
Actually, it seems a lot of the provided test cases fail for float
timestamps anyway; there's an assumption that
294276-12-31 23:59:59.999999
294277-01-01 00:00:00.000000
are distinct timestamps, which they are not in float mode.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-03-16 17:27:14 | Re: Pushdown target list below gather node (WAS Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification) |
| Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2016-03-16 17:23:45 | Re: Choosing parallel_degree |