From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #17795: Erroneous parsing of floating-poing components in
 DecodeISO8601Interval()
In-reply-to: <18486f0e-cdfa-49b3-c863-bb83bdd8a097@gmail.com>
References: <17795-748d6db3ed95d313@postgresql.org>
 <3449142.1676850059@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <18486f0e-cdfa-49b3-c863-bb83bdd8a097@gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
	message dated "Mon, 20 Feb 2023 13:00:00 +0300"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3801959.1676930364.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 16:59:24 -0500
Message-ID: <3801960.1676930364@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3801960.1676930364%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com> writes:
> 20.02.2023 02:40, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There are a couple of other places where datetime.c is using strtod()
>> to parse what it expects to be a fractional value.  I'm inclined to
>> just barf if the result is out of range.  Maybe we shouldn't back-patch
>> that aspect into v15, not sure.

> I could not find a way to pass the e-notation there.

True, I was thinking of this as future-proofing not as closing any
live loophole.

> Also, the comment added makes me wonder, whether ".1e-10"
> (e.g., in "1.1e-10") can be considered bogus too. I would say so
> (if we are going to just add a fraction produced by ParseFraction()
> to some integer part later, we still get the wrong result
> (for the scientific notation)), and if we want to have
> a consistent syntax, maybe it's worth to check an input string for 'e'/'E',
> but if not, then maybe leave it alone. I would prefer the latter for now.

Fair enough.  I pushed the ParseISO8601Number fix without
touching the other two places.

			regards, tom lane