From: | Alban Hertroys <dalroi(at)solfertje(dot)student(dot)utwente(dot)nl> |
---|---|
To: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PGSQL Mailing List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Issues with generate_series using integer boundaries |
Date: | 2011-02-01 21:32:52 |
Message-ID: | CB0F669D-83CB-4ADA-90D4-9D89B9AADF6D@solfertje.student.utwente.nl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On 1 Feb 2011, at 21:26, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 1 February 2011 01:05, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> writes:
>>> I've noticed that if I try to use generate_series to include the upper
>>> boundary of int4, it never returns:
>>
>> I'll bet it's testing "currval > bound" without considering the
>> possibility that incrementing currval caused an overflow wraparound.
>> We fixed a similar problem years ago in plpgsql FOR-loops...
>
> Yes, you're right. Internally, the current value is checked against
> the finish. If it hasn't yet passed it, the current value is
> increased by the step. When it reaches the upper bound, since it
> hasn't yet exceeded the finish, it proceeds to increment it again,
> resulting in the iterator wrapping past the upper bound to become the
> lower bound. This then keeps it looping from the lower bound upward,
> so the current value stays well below the end.
That could actually be used as a feature to create a repeating series. A bit more control would be useful though :P
Alban Hertroys
--
If you can't see the forest for the trees,
cut the trees and you'll see there is no forest.
!DSPAM:737,4d487c1211731974314558!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-02-01 21:44:51 | Re: zero_damaged_pages doesn't work |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-02-01 21:31:41 | Re: cast problem in Postgresql 9.0.1 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nick Rudnick | 2011-02-01 21:41:57 | Re: [pgsql-general 2011-1-21:] Are there any projects interested in object functionality? (+ rule bases) |
Previous Message | Nick Rudnick | 2011-02-01 21:27:47 | Re: [pgsql-general 2011-1-21:] Are there any projects interested in object functionality? (+ rule bases) |