I am unclear about this report.  The patch was not meant to fix every
interval issue, but merely to improve multiplication and division
computations.  Does it do that?  I think the 23:60 is a time rounding
issue that isn't covered in this patch.  I am not against fixing it, but
does the submitted patch improve things or not?  Given we are
post-feature freeze, we don't have time to fix all the interval issues.


Michael Glaesemann wrote:
> On Sep 1, 2006, at 5:05 , Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>> Well, the patch only multiplies by 30, so the interval would have to
> >>> span +5 million years to overflow.  I don't see any reason to add
> >>> rounding until we get an actual query that needs it
> >>
> >> Have you tried your patch against the various cases that have been
> >> discussed in the past?  In particular there were several distinct
> >> examples of this behavior posted at the beginning of the thread, and
> >> I'd not assume that a fix for one handles them all.
> >
> > Yes, it fixes all posted examples, except one that displays 23:60.  I
> > cannot reproduce that failure from Powerpc so am waiting for  
> > Michael to
> > test it.
> Here's your patch tested on my machine, both with and without -- 
> enable-integer-datetimes. I've tweaked the ad hoc test suite to  
> include a case where the days and time differ in sign and added a  
> couple of queries to the ad hoc test suite to include the problems  
> Tom referred to--not that this patch will fix them, but to keep the  
> known problems together. I hope to add more to this to test more edge  
> cases.

  Bruce Momjian   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
       choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not

Reply via email to