SQL code:
ROLLBACK;
BEGIN;
CREATE TYPE "composite_type" AS (
"typename" VARCHAR
);
CREATE TABLE "buggy" (
"id" BIGINT NOT NULL,
"bug" "composite_type",
CONSTRAINT "buggy_pkey" PRIMARY KEY("id")
) WITH OIDS;
INSERT INTO buggy (id, bug) VALUES
(100196418052926086, NULL);
CRE
Sorry, bug is not in triggers, it is in PL/PGSQL var assign mechanism
here it is an example:
ROLLBACK;
BEGIN;
CREATE TYPE "composite_type" AS (
"type" VARCHAR,
"type2" VARCHAR
);
CREATE TABLE "buggy" (
"id" BIGINT NOT NULL,
"bug" "composite_type",
CONSTRA
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 8:05 AM, Alex Hunsaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> A likely bet is that this is caused by use of uninitialized memory,
>> which happens to have garbage rather than zeroes in it the second
>> time throu
"Brendan Jurd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have some thoughts on this and other issues surrounding AM/PM, but
> perhaps they are better reserved for a separate thread. Might I
> suggest we apply Alex's bugfix and hold off on the message changes
> pending further discussion?
Agreed on separati
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Brendan Jurd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I have some thoughts on this and other issues surrounding AM/PM, but
>> perhaps they are better reserved for a separate thread. Might I
>> suggest we apply Alex's bugfix and hold of
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 12:11 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Agreed on separating the message issue. What I wanted to know was
> whether there are similar bugs elsewhere in to_timestamp, or whether
> you're pretty sure this is the only occurrence of the coding pattern?
I'm pretty sur
"Brendan Jurd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 12:11 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Agreed on separating the message issue. What I wanted to know was
>> whether there are similar bugs elsewhere in to_timestamp, or whether
>> you're pretty sure this is the only occ
