Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] to_date() validation

2008-09-11 Thread Brendan Jurd
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 3:34 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Applied with minimal modifications. I changed a couple of error > messages that didn't seem to meet the style guidelines, Great, thanks Tom. And thanks again to Alex and Martijn for helping me refine the patch. > and I moved

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] to_date() validation

2008-09-11 Thread Tom Lane
"Brendan Jurd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've attached a new version of the patch (version 3), as well as an > incremental patch to show the differences between versions 2 and 3. Applied with minimal modifications. I changed a couple of error messages that didn't seem to meet the style guidel

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] to_date() validation

2008-09-09 Thread Alex Hunsaker
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Brendan Jurd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Brendan Jurd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> The use of palloc/pfree in this routine seems excessive. Does

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] to_date() validation

2008-09-09 Thread Alex Hunsaker
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 2:24 AM, Brendan Jurd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > HEAD actually gets this one wrong; in defiance of the documentation it > returns 2000-09-07. So, it seems to me that the patch shifts the > behaviour in the right direction. > > Barring actually teaching the code that some n

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] to_date() validation

2008-09-09 Thread Brendan Jurd
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Brendan Jurd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The use of palloc/pfree in this routine seems excessive. Does len have >> upper bound? If so a simple array will do it. >> > > I suppose I

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] to_date() validation

2008-09-09 Thread Brendan Jurd
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I actually had a look at this patch also, though not as thoroughly as > Alex. There was one part that I had some thoughts about in > from_char_parse_int_len: > Hi Martijn. Thanks for your comments. > The use of

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] to_date() validation

2008-09-09 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 06:24:14PM +1000, Brendan Jurd wrote: > On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 5:58 AM, Alex Hunsaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Im just following this: > > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Reviewing_a_Patch so lets get started. > > > > Hi Alex. Thanks for taking the time to review my

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] to_date() validation

2008-09-08 Thread Brendan Jurd
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Brendan Jurd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 5:58 AM, Alex Hunsaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Code review: one minor nit >> *** a/src/backend/utils/adt/formatting.c >> --- b/src/backend/utils/adt/formatting.c >> *** >> *** 781,787

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] to_date() validation

2008-09-08 Thread Brendan Jurd
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 5:58 AM, Alex Hunsaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Im just following this: > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Reviewing_a_Patch so lets get started. > Hi Alex. Thanks for taking the time to review my patch. > Feature test: Everything seems to work as advertised. However be