Hello Bruce,
thank you for your contribution. However, as seen from my later report, the
situation is much much worse (complex, if you want) than this bug. Please
see this:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAMWF=HS++N9-NKsh-o5QSymvp0Np-VB0GdWwAt4uie1h8ZdNTQ@mail.gmail.com
Rok Kralj,
PostgreSQL enthusiast
2014-01-25 Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 11:03:53AM +0000, rok.kralj@gmail.com wrote:
> > The following bug has been logged on the website:
> >
> > Bug reference: 8230
> > Logged by: Rok Kralj
> > Email address: rok.kralj@gmail.com
> > PostgreSQL version: 9.2.4
> > Operating system: Arch Linux
> > Description:
> >
> > As far as I know, the INTERVAL type is represented using three int32, one
> > for months, days and milliseconds.
> >
> > However, overflow detections seems to work correctly only on these three
> > types; if they get overflown indirectly, they do not get detected:
> >
> > SELECT INTERVAL '3000000000 days'
> > ERROR: interval field value out of range: "3000000000 days"
> >
> > SELECT INTERVAL '2000000000 years'
> > -147483648 years
> >
> > I'm surprised this hasn't been reported yet. The expected behaviour is to
> > raise an error.
>
> The attached patch fixes the problem:
>
> test=> SELECT INTERVAL '2000000000 years';
> ERROR: interval out of range
> LINE 1: SELECT INTERVAL '2000000000 years';
>
> It also fixes this case
>
> test=> SELECT INTERVAL '2000000000-3 years';
> ERROR: interval field value out of range: "2000000000-3 years"
> LINE 1: SELECT INTERVAL '2000000000-3 years';
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
> EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
>
> + Everyone has their own god. +
>
--
eMail: rok.kralj@gmail.com
