Re: [PATCH] Integer overflow in timestamp[tz]_part() and date/time boundaries check

On 3/14/16, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> 14.03.2016 16:23, David Steele:
>> On 2/25/16 4:44 PM, Vitaly Burovoy wrote:
>>
>>> Added to the commitfest 2016-03.
>>>
>>> [CF] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/540/
>>
>> This looks like a fairly straight-forward bug fix (the size of the
>> patch is deceptive because there a lot of new tests included). It
>> applies cleanly.
>>
>> Anastasia, I see you have signed up to review. Do you have an idea
>> when you will get the chance to do that?
>>
>> Thanks,
>
> I've read the patch thoroughly and haven't found any problems. I think
> that the patch is in a very good shape.
> It fixes a bug and has an excellent set of tests.
>
> There is an issue, mentioned in the thread above:
>
>>postgres=# select
>>postgres-# to_char(date_trunc('week', '4713-01-01 BC'::date),'day')
>>postgres-# ,to_char(date_trunc('week', '4714-12-29 BC'::date),'day')
>>postgres-# ,to_char(date_trunc('week', '4714-12-28 BC'::date),'day');
>> to_char | to_char | to_char
>>-----------+-----------+-----------
>> monday | monday | thursday
>>(1 row)
>
>>since 4714-12-28 BC and to the past detection when a week is starting
>>is broken (because it is boundary of isoyears -4713 and -4712).
>>Is it worth to break undocumented range or leave it as is?
>
> But I suppose that behavior of undocumented dates is not essential.

I'm sorry... What should I do with "Waiting on Author" state if you
don't have complaints?

> --
> Anastasia Lubennikova
> Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
> The Russian Postgres Company

--
Best regards,
Vitaly Burovoy