Re: [PATCHES] Check for integer overflow in datetime functions

2005-12-02 Thread Joshua D. Drake
http://projects.commandprompt.com/projects/public/pgsql/browser/trunk/pgsql It has the additional advantage over our current CVSweb that it's set with tabs to 4 spaces, so it looks just like our code is supposed to ... I need to spend some time on it to see if there is a way that I

Re: [PATCHES] Check for integer overflow in datetime functions

2005-12-02 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Magnus Hagander wrote: BTW, has anyone checked Command Prompt's Subversion repository? It's a mirror of our anonymous CVS (AFAICT). I'm using it for reading diffs lately, and it's much nicer to look at the whole patch as a single diff rather than going a single file at a time. http://pr

Re: [PATCHES] Check for integer overflow in datetime functions

2005-12-01 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
BTW, has anyone checked Command Prompt's Subversion repository? It's a mirror of our anonymous CVS (AFAICT). I'm using it for reading diffs lately, and it's much nicer to look at the whole patch as a single diff rather than going a single file at a time. http://projects.commandprompt.com/projec

Re: [PATCHES] Check for integer overflow in datetime functions

2005-12-01 Thread Magnus Hagander
> BTW, has anyone checked Command Prompt's Subversion > repository? It's a mirror of our anonymous CVS (AFAICT). > I'm using it for reading diffs lately, and it's much nicer to > look at the whole patch as a single diff rather than going a > single file at a time. > > http://projects.command

Re: [PATCHES] Check for integer overflow in datetime functions

2005-12-01 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Check integer conversion for overflow in datetime functions. Applied back to 7.4. The patch would not work in 7.3 because we didn't have the DTERR_ convention back then, and it seems not worth the effort to try to deal with the problem that far back. >

Re: [PATCHES] Check for integer overflow in datetime functions

2005-12-01 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Don't worry about that, I'll take care of it. I prefer committing all >> the branches at once when doing a multi-branch fix (less clutter in >> the CVS logs). > How do you do that? I have multiple checked-out trees, I assume you do

Re: [PATCHES] Check for integer overflow in datetime functions

2005-12-01 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: > Don't worry about that, I'll take care of it. I prefer committing all > the branches at once when doing a multi-branch fix (less clutter in > the CVS logs). How do you do that? I have multiple checked-out trees, I assume you do the same and just handle the simultaneous-ness by

Re: [PATCHES] Check for integer overflow in datetime functions

2005-12-01 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Check integer conversion for overflow in datetime functions. Looks reasonable, will check and apply. > This patch should apply cleanly against HEAD and 8.1. If the patch > looks good then I'll submit patches for earlier branches when I get > a chance to

Re: [PATCHES] Check for integer overflow in datetime functions

2005-12-01 Thread Tom Lane
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It seems a bit laborious to always manually set errno to zero before > invoking strtol() (both in the places added by the patch, and all the > places that already did that). While it's only a minor notational > improvement, I wonder if it would be worth add

Re: [PATCHES] Check for integer overflow in datetime functions

2005-12-01 Thread Neil Conway
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 19:36 -0700, Michael Fuhr wrote: > Check integer conversion for overflow in datetime functions. It seems a bit laborious to always manually set errno to zero before invoking strtol() (both in the places added by the patch, and all the places that already did that). While it's