| From: | Keith Fiske <keith(at)omniti(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Keith <keith(at)keithf4(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #14322: Possible inconsistent behavior with timestamp_to_str() |
| Date: | 2016-09-13 21:06:16 |
| Message-ID: | CAG1_KcCkcUYaZmNz6ot9GJrtYNur0KOz7QhiUF6FZDC16XZ9+w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> wrote:
> On 2016-09-13 22:58, Keith Fiske wrote:
>
>> No, it's obtained elsewhere by querying the current max timestamp value
>> from the partition set.
>> Shouldn't matter if it was, though. You can see that all it takes to
>> change
>> the string output of the timestamp is swapping the values around. The
>> values of the variables are the same in either case.
>>
>
> Did you miss this part?
>
> /* [ ... ] Note
> * also that the result is in a static buffer, not pstrdup'd.
> */
>
>
> .m
>
Yeah I did see that when i went to look at its source and wondered if that
may be why, but I'm still fairly new to C and wasn't sure that was the
reason.
Still think it would be nice to use it in a more flexible manner.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-09-13 21:21:38 | Re: BUG #14322: Possible inconsistent behavior with timestamp_to_str() |
| Previous Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2016-09-13 21:03:22 | Re: BUG #14322: Possible inconsistent behavior with timestamp_to_str() |