pg.ddx.io pgsql-committers@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedpgsql: Tighten typedef check for Linux.
7+ messages / 2 participants
[nested] [flat]
* pgsql: Tighten typedef check for Linux.
@ 2009-06-12 03:09 Bruce Momjian <momjian@postgresql.org>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: momjian@postgresql.org @ 2009-06-12 03:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-committers
Log Message:
-----------
Tighten typedef check for Linux.
Modified Files:
--------------
pgsql/src/tools:
find_typedef (r1.15 -> r1.16)
(http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/tools/find_typedef?r1=1.15&r2=1.16)
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* pgsql: Detect more overflows in timestamp[tz]_pl_interval.
@ 2024-04-28 17:42 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2024-04-28 17:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
Detect more overflows in timestamp[tz]_pl_interval.
In commit 25cd2d640 I (tgl) opined that "The additions of the months
and microseconds fields could also overflow, of course. However,
I believe we need no additional checks there; the existing range
checks should catch such cases". This is demonstrably wrong however
for the microseconds field, and given that discovery it seems prudent
to be paranoid about the months addition as well.
Report and patch by Joseph Koshakow. As before, back-patch to all
supported branches. (However, the test case doesn't work before
v15 because we didn't allow wider-than-int32 numbers in interval
literals. A variant test could probably be built that fits within
that restriction, but it didn't seem worth the trouble.)
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAvxfHf77sRHKoEzUw9_cMYSpbpNS2C+J_+8Dq4+0oi8iKopeA@mail.gmail.com
Branch
------
REL_15_STABLE
Details
-------
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/e6e3ee5b7e2346c19824b391bcd1fcc30baee2ec
Modified Files
--------------
src/backend/utils/adt/timestamp.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++----
src/test/regress/expected/horology.out | 4 ++++
src/test/regress/sql/horology.sql | 2 ++
3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* pgsql: Detect more overflows in timestamp[tz]_pl_interval.
@ 2024-04-28 17:42 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2024-04-28 17:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
Detect more overflows in timestamp[tz]_pl_interval.
In commit 25cd2d640 I (tgl) opined that "The additions of the months
and microseconds fields could also overflow, of course. However,
I believe we need no additional checks there; the existing range
checks should catch such cases". This is demonstrably wrong however
for the microseconds field, and given that discovery it seems prudent
to be paranoid about the months addition as well.
Report and patch by Joseph Koshakow. As before, back-patch to all
supported branches. (However, the test case doesn't work before
v15 because we didn't allow wider-than-int32 numbers in interval
literals. A variant test could probably be built that fits within
that restriction, but it didn't seem worth the trouble.)
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAvxfHf77sRHKoEzUw9_cMYSpbpNS2C+J_+8Dq4+0oi8iKopeA@mail.gmail.com
Branch
------
REL_12_STABLE
Details
-------
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/cb0ccefa03d351d9c643362ac77fca7dadd9fc42
Modified Files
--------------
src/backend/utils/adt/timestamp.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* pgsql: Detect more overflows in timestamp[tz]_pl_interval.
@ 2024-04-28 17:42 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2024-04-28 17:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
Detect more overflows in timestamp[tz]_pl_interval.
In commit 25cd2d640 I (tgl) opined that "The additions of the months
and microseconds fields could also overflow, of course. However,
I believe we need no additional checks there; the existing range
checks should catch such cases". This is demonstrably wrong however
for the microseconds field, and given that discovery it seems prudent
to be paranoid about the months addition as well.
Report and patch by Joseph Koshakow. As before, back-patch to all
supported branches. (However, the test case doesn't work before
v15 because we didn't allow wider-than-int32 numbers in interval
literals. A variant test could probably be built that fits within
that restriction, but it didn't seem worth the trouble.)
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAvxfHf77sRHKoEzUw9_cMYSpbpNS2C+J_+8Dq4+0oi8iKopeA@mail.gmail.com
Branch
------
REL_14_STABLE
Details
-------
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/1748379b636152b6633498c6488fd98aa015bc99
Modified Files
--------------
src/backend/utils/adt/timestamp.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* pgsql: Detect more overflows in timestamp[tz]_pl_interval.
@ 2024-04-28 17:42 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2024-04-28 17:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
Detect more overflows in timestamp[tz]_pl_interval.
In commit 25cd2d640 I (tgl) opined that "The additions of the months
and microseconds fields could also overflow, of course. However,
I believe we need no additional checks there; the existing range
checks should catch such cases". This is demonstrably wrong however
for the microseconds field, and given that discovery it seems prudent
to be paranoid about the months addition as well.
Report and patch by Joseph Koshakow. As before, back-patch to all
supported branches. (However, the test case doesn't work before
v15 because we didn't allow wider-than-int32 numbers in interval
literals. A variant test could probably be built that fits within
that restriction, but it didn't seem worth the trouble.)
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAvxfHf77sRHKoEzUw9_cMYSpbpNS2C+J_+8Dq4+0oi8iKopeA@mail.gmail.com
Branch
------
master
Details
-------
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/4019285c064028fbf613f0e43766416a63b826db
Modified Files
--------------
src/backend/utils/adt/timestamp.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++----
src/test/regress/expected/horology.out | 4 ++++
src/test/regress/sql/horology.sql | 2 ++
3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* pgsql: Detect more overflows in timestamp[tz]_pl_interval.
@ 2024-04-28 17:42 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2024-04-28 17:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
Detect more overflows in timestamp[tz]_pl_interval.
In commit 25cd2d640 I (tgl) opined that "The additions of the months
and microseconds fields could also overflow, of course. However,
I believe we need no additional checks there; the existing range
checks should catch such cases". This is demonstrably wrong however
for the microseconds field, and given that discovery it seems prudent
to be paranoid about the months addition as well.
Report and patch by Joseph Koshakow. As before, back-patch to all
supported branches. (However, the test case doesn't work before
v15 because we didn't allow wider-than-int32 numbers in interval
literals. A variant test could probably be built that fits within
that restriction, but it didn't seem worth the trouble.)
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAvxfHf77sRHKoEzUw9_cMYSpbpNS2C+J_+8Dq4+0oi8iKopeA@mail.gmail.com
Branch
------
REL_16_STABLE
Details
-------
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/3752e3d210287787a881ae3c68da019aa86f414e
Modified Files
--------------
src/backend/utils/adt/timestamp.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++----
src/test/regress/expected/horology.out | 4 ++++
src/test/regress/sql/horology.sql | 2 ++
3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* pgsql: Detect more overflows in timestamp[tz]_pl_interval.
@ 2024-04-28 17:42 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2024-04-28 17:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
Detect more overflows in timestamp[tz]_pl_interval.
In commit 25cd2d640 I (tgl) opined that "The additions of the months
and microseconds fields could also overflow, of course. However,
I believe we need no additional checks there; the existing range
checks should catch such cases". This is demonstrably wrong however
for the microseconds field, and given that discovery it seems prudent
to be paranoid about the months addition as well.
Report and patch by Joseph Koshakow. As before, back-patch to all
supported branches. (However, the test case doesn't work before
v15 because we didn't allow wider-than-int32 numbers in interval
literals. A variant test could probably be built that fits within
that restriction, but it didn't seem worth the trouble.)
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAvxfHf77sRHKoEzUw9_cMYSpbpNS2C+J_+8Dq4+0oi8iKopeA@mail.gmail.com
Branch
------
REL_13_STABLE
Details
-------
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/440b6251b75220bd28c063f50f5031f2004758f6
Modified Files
--------------
src/backend/utils/adt/timestamp.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-04-28 17:42 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-06-12 03:09 pgsql: Tighten typedef check for Linux. Bruce Momjian <momjian@postgresql.org>
2024-04-28 17:42 pgsql: Detect more overflows in timestamp[tz]_pl_interval. Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2024-04-28 17:42 pgsql: Detect more overflows in timestamp[tz]_pl_interval. Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2024-04-28 17:42 pgsql: Detect more overflows in timestamp[tz]_pl_interval. Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2024-04-28 17:42 pgsql: Detect more overflows in timestamp[tz]_pl_interval. Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2024-04-28 17:42 pgsql: Detect more overflows in timestamp[tz]_pl_interval. Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2024-04-28 17:42 pgsql: Detect more overflows in timestamp[tz]_pl_interval. Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox