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
