AW: [HACKERS] Re: atttypmod of 0 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Zeugswetter Andreas DBT
Subject AW: [HACKERS] Re: atttypmod of 0
Date
Msg-id 219F68D65015D011A8E000006F8590C6010A51BC@sdexcsrv1.sd.spardat.at
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: AW: [HACKERS] Re: atttypmod of 0  (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Re: AW: [HACKERS] Re: atttypmod of 0  (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Yes, I think to change atttypmod to default to -1 would be the right
thing,
since the empty string '' really has a length of 0,
We could think of -1 as: We don't know how long this field will be.
0 would mean the field has 0 bytes.

Andreas

> >
> >    This  time  it's during the parser (gdb told me). varcharin()
> >     is called with a atttypmod of  0  causing  a  palloc()  of  0
> >     bytes.  How should a VARCHAR type whithout a specified length
> >     behave? Is this type 1 character or a  variable  size  up  to
> >     4096?
> >
> > I thought we fixed this on Feb 3. look at
> > parse_expr.c line 104: it should read:
> >                                 if (con->typename != NULL)
> > !                                       result =
> parser_typecast(val,
> > con->typename, -1);
> >                                 else
> >
> > I think all funcs calling with atttypmod = 0 are allways wrong,
> should
> > be -1.
> > or a number > 0 (or 4 if atttypmod includes the VARHDRSZ don't know)
>
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> >
>
> Yes, we did, but now I fixed varcharin, and bpcharin to test for
> atttypmod of 0 and do the right thing, I think.  If we need to make
> the
> default atttypmod value -1, then we can change it back.  Let me know
> if
> the current fix does not work.
>
> Should I make atttypmod default to -1?
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian
> maillist@candle.pha.pa.us
>
>

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Vadim B. Mikheev"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] what standard say ...
Next
From: Michael Meskes
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Preprocessor