Moaaz Assali writes:
> However, I don't see the issue with the INT64 -> UINT64 mapping. The
> current implementation results in integer overflows (errors instead after
> the recent patch) even for valid timestamps where the result of date_bin()
> is also another valid timestamp.
> On the other ha
Hello Tom,
Thanks for the quick patch!
You're right. The stride_usecs calculation, tm_delta += ustride_usecs, and
final result calculations can overflow and need a guard.
However, I don't see the issue with the INT64 -> UINT64 mapping. The
current implementation results in integer overflows (err
Moaaz Assali writes:
> - I have used INT64 -> UINT64 mapping in order to ensure no integer
> overflows are possible.
I don't think I trust this idea, and in any case it doesn't remove
all the overflow hazards: the reduction of the stride interval to
microseconds can overflow, and the final subtra
Yeah you are right about the integer overflow.
Consider this query: select date_bin('15 minutes'::interval, timestamp
'294276-12-30 10:24:00', timestamp '4000-12-20 23:00:00 BC');
It will return 294276-12-30 10:31:49.551616 when it should be 294276-12-30
10:15:00, which happens because source tim
I wrote:
> Hmm, yeah. The "stride_usecs > 1" test seems like it's a partial
> attempt to account for this that is probably redundant given the
> additional condition. Also, can we avoid computing tm_diff %
> stride_usecs twice? Maybe the compiler is smart enough to remove the
> common subexpress
Moaaz Assali writes:
> The date_bin() function has a bug where it returns an incorrect binned date
> when both of the following are true:
> 1) the origin timestamp is before the source timestamp
> 2) the origin timestamp is exactly equivalent to some valid binned date in
> the set of binned dates
Hello Daniel,
I have added a test case for this in timestamp.sql and timestamp.out, and
tests pass when using the bug fix patch in the first email.
I have attached a new patch in this email below with the new tests only
(doesn't include the bug fix).
P.S. I forgot to CC the mailing list in my pre
> On 27 Feb 2024, at 09:42, Moaaz Assali wrote:
> To account for this edge, we simply add another condition in the if statement
> to not perform the subtraction by one stride interval if the time difference
> is divisible by the stride.
I only skimmed the patch, but I recommend adding a testca
Hello,
The date_bin() function has a bug where it returns an incorrect binned date
when both of the following are true:
1) the origin timestamp is before the source timestamp
2) the origin timestamp is exactly equivalent to some valid binned date in
the set of binned dates that date_bin() can retu
