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

[Tom Lane]

Anastasia Lubennikova  writes:
> 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).

BTW, I think the actual problem is that j2day() figured that coercing
its argument to unsigned int would be sufficient to produce a sane
answer for negative inputs.  It isn't.  Nobody sees this with inputs
after 4714BC, but when probing in 4714 the code considers the
reference point 4714-01-04, which has a negative Julian date and so
we end up passing a negative date to j2day().

regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

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

[Anastasia Lubennikova]

15.03.2016 03:21, Vitaly Burovoy:

On 3/14/16, Anastasia Lubennikova  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?



I was going to set "Ready for Committer", but then I've noticed message 
from Mark Dilger and changed my mind.

Now, when you answered him, I have no objections.

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



--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

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

[Vitaly Burovoy]

On 3/14/16, Anastasia Lubennikova  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


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

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

[Anastasia Lubennikova]

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.

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



--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

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

[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,
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers