I said:
I'll make a note to do something with this issue after the TZ patch
is in.
I've applied a patch to take care of this problem.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I said:
I'll make a note to do something with this issue after the TZ patch
is in.
I've applied a patch to take care of this problem.
Great, thanks, much appriciated. I'll test once 7.5 goes beta.
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Bruce Momjian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Would you show an example of the invalid value this is trying to avoid?
Well, the way I discovered the problem was by sending a timestamp in
double format when the server was expecting one in int64 format.
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Bruce Momjian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Would you show an example of the invalid value this is trying to avoid?
Well, the way I discovered the problem was by sending a timestamp in
double format when the
Stephen Frost wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
* Bruce Momjian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Would you show an example of the invalid value this is trying to avoid?
Well, the way I discovered the problem was by sending a timestamp in
double format when the server was expecting one in
* Bruce Momjian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Stephen Frost wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
* Bruce Momjian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Would you show an example of the invalid value this is trying to avoid?
Well, the way I discovered the problem was by sending a timestamp in
* Bruce Momjian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Stephen Frost wrote:
I'll see about writing up a proper test case/schema. Looks like I'm
probably most of the way there at this point, really. ;)
I wasn't aware you could throw binary values into the timestamp fields
like that. I thought you
Stephen Frost wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
* Bruce Momjian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Stephen Frost wrote:
I'll see about writing up a proper test case/schema. Looks like I'm
probably most of the way there at this point, really. ;)
I wasn't aware you could throw binary
* Bruce Momjian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Considering all the other things the database is doing, I can't imagine
that would be a measurable improvement.
It makes it easier on my client program too which is listening to an
ethernet interface and trying to process all of the packets coming in
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wasn't aware you could throw binary values into the timestamp fields
like that. I thought you needed to use a C string for the value.
This facility was added in 7.4 as part of the wire-protocol overhaul.
It's nothing directly to do with PREPARE; you
* Bruce Momjian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wasn't aware you could throw binary values into the timestamp fields
like that. I thought you needed to use a C string for the value.
This facility was added in 7.4 as part of the
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wasn't aware you could throw binary values into the timestamp fields
like that. I thought you needed to use a C string for the value.
This facility was added in 7.4 as part of the wire-protocol overhaul.
It's nothing directly to
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How many datatype have this issue?
I don't think that many do.. A number of them already check incoming
values where it's possible for them to not be valid.
In general we do check incoming binary values to ensure minimal
validity. I think when I did
I wrote:
In general we do check incoming binary values to ensure minimal
validity. I think when I did timestamp_recv I was thinking it was
just like int8 or float8 (respectively), in that any bit pattern is
potentially legal; I had forgotten about the range restrictions.
I haven't looked at
Would you show an example of the invalid value this is trying to avoid?
---
Stephen Frost wrote:
Greetings,
The attached patch adds some error-checking to the timestamp_recv
function so that it's not possible to
15 matches
Mail list logo
