On 03.08.24 16:07, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 03/08/2024 14:04, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I noticed (during [0]) to some uses of the function atol() seem
inappropriate. Either they assume that sizeof(long)==8 and so might
truncate data if not, or they are gratuitous because the surrounding
co
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> I'm actually not even sure if it's intentional to throw the error even
> with "char[1]". It makes sense to give an error on "char", but who says
> that "char[1]" isn't a valid string?
I agree that that behavior looks more like an implementation artifact
than anythin
On 03/08/2024 18:20, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
On 03/08/2024 14:04, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I noticed (during [0]) to some uses of the function atol() seem
inappropriate.
+1 except for this one:
/* If we have just one character this is not a string */
-
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> On 03/08/2024 14:04, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I noticed (during [0]) to some uses of the function atol() seem
>> inappropriate.
> +1 except for this one:
>> /* If we have just one character this is not a string */
>> -if (atol(p->type->size) ==
On 03/08/2024 14:04, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I noticed (during [0]) to some uses of the function atol() seem
inappropriate. Either they assume that sizeof(long)==8 and so might
truncate data if not, or they are gratuitous because the surrounding
code does not use the long type. This patch fix
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/5d216d1c-91f6-4cbe-95e2-b4cbd9305...@ewie.nameFrom 5b3908bffd5f2731550c810dadb50e7d40f1b855 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 12:29:50 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Fix inappropriate uses of atol()
Some code using atol() would not
