Re: BUG #17795: Erroneous parsing of floating-poing components in DecodeISO8601Interval()
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: BUG #17795: Erroneous parsing of floating-poing components in DecodeISO8601Interval() |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 3801960.1676930364@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: BUG #17795: Erroneous parsing of floating-poing components in DecodeISO8601Interval() (Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-bugs |
Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com> writes:
> 20.02.2023 02:40, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There are a couple of other places where datetime.c is using strtod()
>> to parse what it expects to be a fractional value. I'm inclined to
>> just barf if the result is out of range. Maybe we shouldn't back-patch
>> that aspect into v15, not sure.
> I could not find a way to pass the e-notation there.
True, I was thinking of this as future-proofing not as closing any
live loophole.
> Also, the comment added makes me wonder, whether ".1e-10"
> (e.g., in "1.1e-10") can be considered bogus too. I would say so
> (if we are going to just add a fraction produced by ParseFraction()
> to some integer part later, we still get the wrong result
> (for the scientific notation)), and if we want to have
> a consistent syntax, maybe it's worth to check an input string for 'e'/'E',
> but if not, then maybe leave it alone. I would prefer the latter for now.
Fair enough. I pushed the ParseISO8601Number fix without
touching the other two places.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: