Thanks, patch applied.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 1:53 PM Khushboo Vashi <
khushboo.va...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Patch looks good to me.
>
> Thanks,
> Khushboo
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:07 PM navnath gadakh <
> navnath.gad...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Khushboo,
>>
>> Please
Hi,
Patch looks good to me.
Thanks,
Khushboo
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:07 PM navnath gadakh <
navnath.gad...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Hi Khushboo,
>
> Please find the modified patch. I have removed the length from the data
> types. Test cases also passing on all Postgres versions.
> Thanks!
Hi Khushboo,
Please find the modified patch. I have removed the length from the data
types. Test cases also passing on all Postgres versions.
Thanks!
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 6:22 PM Ashesh Vashi
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 18:21, Ashesh Vashi
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 15 Apr 2020
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 18:21, Ashesh Vashi
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 18:18, Murtuza Zabuawala <
> murtuza.zabuaw...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> We are sending the data to backend and depending on errors from backend. Any
>> thoughts on implementation of basic fronted vali
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 18:18, Murtuza Zabuawala <
murtuza.zabuaw...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We are sending the data to backend and depending on errors from backend. Any
> thoughts on implementation of basic fronted validations? so that we can
> alert user before it clicks on save but
Hello,
We are sending the data to backend and depending on errors from backend. Any
thoughts on implementation of basic fronted validations? so that we can
alert user before it clicks on save button.
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020, 18:08 Dave Page, wrote:
> Removing the typecast will almost certainly lea
Removing the typecast will almost certainly lead to other problems. I think
we should just remove the length from it.
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 1:33 PM navnath gadakh <
navnath.gad...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> @Dave Page @Akshay Joshi
> your input please?
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 3:13 PM Nee
Hi Navnath
Scenario 3 seems correct to me. No need to type cast.
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 6:03 PM navnath gadakh <
navnath.gad...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> @Dave Page @Akshay Joshi
> your input please?
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 3:13 PM Neel Patel
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think we should r
@Dave Page @Akshay Joshi
your input please?
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 3:13 PM Neel Patel
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think we should remove the type cast from query during update and
> whatever error is thrown should be shown to UI as per scenario 3.
>
> Thanks,
> Neel Patel
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at
Hi,
I think we should remove the type cast from query during update and
whatever error is thrown should be shown to UI as per scenario 3.
Thanks,
Neel Patel
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 3:06 PM Khushboo Vashi <
khushboo.va...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 2:48 PM navnath gad
Hi,
I think this is not a bug. From what I can see, the query - "UPDATE
public.account SET username = 'username-test-123'::character varying(5)
WHERE user_id = 1;" will not throw any error from psql. The same query is
fired by pgAdmin, hence no error.
To get an error we need to remove the typecas
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 2:48 PM navnath gadakh <
navnath.gad...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Hello Hackers,
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 5:14 PM Khushboo Vashi <
> khushboo.va...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Navnath,
>>
>> You have compared the column's internal size with the length of the valu
Hello Hackers,
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 5:14 PM Khushboo Vashi <
khushboo.va...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Hi Navnath,
>
> You have compared the column's internal size with the length of the value
> given by the user.
> For example, column having integer would have internal size 4 and if I
> give
Hi Navnath,
You have compared the column's internal size with the length of the value
given by the user.
For example, column having integer would have internal size 4 and if I give
the value 12121 which is the correct input for the field will fail here
because as per your logic column internal siz
Hi,
I am reviewing this patch.
Thanks,
Khushboo
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 4:33 PM navnath gadakh <
navnath.gad...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Hello Hackers,
> Please find the attached patch for below fixes:
>
> - Added validation for table row data that should not be larger than the
> field size.
Hello Hackers,
Please find the attached patch for below fixes:
- Added validation for table row data that should not be larger than the
field size.
- Rearrange the existing functions to add validation.
- Added test cases.
Regards,
Navnath Gadakh
rm_5210_v1.patch
Description: Binary data
16 matches
Mail list logo
