Re: BUG #1671: Long interval string representation rejected - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Neil Conway
Subject Re: BUG #1671: Long interval string representation rejected
Date
Msg-id 428C2467.6090904@samurai.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: BUG #1671: Long interval string representation rejected  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: BUG #1671: Long interval string representation rejected  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-bugs
Tom Lane wrote:
> Sorry, s/downcased/downcased and null-terminated/.  I have not read the
> parsing code in question lately, but offhand it seems like transferring
> one token at a time into a work buffer isn't a completely broken idea...

I wouldn't call it "broken", but I don't see how it could be done
without a significant refactoring of how datetime parsing is done, and
your handwaving has yet to convince me :) The gist of the current code is:

1. parse the input string into fields, which are arrays of pointers into
a working buffer, via ParseDateTime()
2. decode the fields as appropriate for the datatype via
DecodeInterval(), DecodeDatetime(), DecodeTimeOnly(), etc.

i.e. I don't see an easy way to do field decoding one field at a time.

-Neil

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #1671: Long interval string representation rejected
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #1671: Long interval string representation rejected