X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDB1B329D3B for ; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:49:33 +0100 (BST) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 17341-06 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:49:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8267D329E8D for ; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:49:26 +0100 (BST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id i9HJnP24010334; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:49:25 -0400 (EDT) To: Andrew Dunstan Cc: PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: strange result from contrib/seg regression on windows In-reply-to: <4172C96E.6060008@dunslane.net> References: <4172C96E.6060008@dunslane.net> Comments: In-reply-to Andrew Dunstan message dated "Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:35:10 -0400" Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:49:25 -0400 Message-ID: <10333.1098042565@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200410/553 X-Sequence-Number: 60056 Andrew Dunstan writes: > Does anyone have a clue why? Evidently your sscanf isn't setting errno for overflow --- look at seg_atof() in segparse.y. This code shows several other signs of severe brain death, actually, like leaking 256 bytes on each call for an error message buffer that it doesn't even need :-( I'd recommend ripping the whole thing out and replacing with a call to float4in. regards, tom lane