From: | Nick Babadzhanian <pgnickb(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andrey Borodin <amborodin86(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Silent overflow of interval type |
Date: | 2023-02-16 13:00:23 |
Message-ID: | CABw73UoEJyMpC3Gyg4mP+UjhWfndCqDE728T4679YrmyY3mjiA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 1:12 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Yeah, I don't think this would create a performance problem, at least not
> if you're using a compiler that implements pg_sub_s64_overflow reasonably.
> (And if you're not, and this bugs you, the answer is to get a better
Please find attached the v2 of the said patch with the tests added. I
tested and it applies with all tests passing both on REL_14_STABLE,
REL_15_STABLE and master. I don't know how the decision on
backpatching is made and whether it makes sense here or not. If any
additional work is required, please let me know.
> By chance did you look at all other nearby cases, is it the only place
> with overflow?
Not really, no. The other place where it could overflow was in the
interval justification function and it was fixed about a year ago.
That wasn't backpatched afaict. See
https://postgr.es/m/CAAvxfHeNqsJ2xYFbPUf_8nNQUiJqkag04NW6aBQQ0dbZsxfWHA@mail.gmail.com
Regards,
Nick
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v2-0001-Fix-interval-silent-overflow.patch | text/x-patch | 2.8 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2023-02-16 13:15:28 | RE: Support logical replication of DDLs |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2023-02-16 12:47:33 | Re: Allow logical replication to copy tables in binary format |