summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/src/tools/testint128.c
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
2017-06-21Initial pgindent run with pg_bsd_indent version 2.0.Tom Lane
The new indent version includes numerous fixes thanks to Piotr Stefaniak. The main changes visible in this commit are: * Nicer formatting of function-pointer declarations. * No longer unexpectedly removes spaces in expressions using casts, sizeof, or offsetof. * No longer wants to add a space in "struct structname *varname", as well as some similar cases for const- or volatile-qualified pointers. * Declarations using PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY are formatted more nicely. * Fixes bug where comments following declarations were sometimes placed with no space separating them from the code. * Fixes some odd decisions for comments following case labels. * Fixes some cases where comments following code were indented to less than the expected column 33. On the less good side, it now tends to put more whitespace around typedef names that are not listed in typedefs.list. This might encourage us to put more effort into typedef name collection; it's not really a bug in indent itself. There are more changes coming after this round, having to do with comment indentation and alignment of lines appearing within parentheses. I wanted to limit the size of the diffs to something that could be reviewed without one's eyes completely glazing over, so it seemed better to split up the changes as much as practical. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
2017-05-17Post-PG 10 beta1 pgindent runBruce Momjian
perltidy run not included.
2017-04-06Fix integer-overflow problems in interval comparison.Tom Lane
When using integer timestamps, the interval-comparison functions tried to compute the overall magnitude of an interval as an int64 number of microseconds. As reported by Frazer McLean, this overflows for intervals exceeding about 296000 years, which is bad since we nominally allow intervals many times larger than that. That results in wrong comparison results, and possibly in corrupted btree indexes for columns containing such large interval values. To fix, compute the magnitude as int128 instead. Although some compilers have native support for int128 calculations, many don't, so create our own support functions that can do 128-bit addition and multiplication if the compiler support isn't there. These support functions are designed with an eye to allowing the int128 code paths in numeric.c to be rewritten for use on all platforms, although this patch doesn't do that, or even provide all the int128 primitives that will be needed for it. Back-patch as far as 9.4. Earlier releases did not guard against overflow of interval values at all (commit 146604ec4 fixed that), so it seems not very exciting to worry about overly-large intervals for them. Before 9.6, we did not assume that unreferenced "static inline" functions would not draw compiler warnings, so omit functions not directly referenced by timestamp.c, the only present consumer of int128.h. (We could have omitted these functions in HEAD too, but since they were written and debugged on the way to the present patch, and they look likely to be needed by numeric.c, let's keep them in HEAD.) I did not bother to try to prevent such warnings in a --disable-integer-datetimes build, though. Before 9.5, configure will never define HAVE_INT128, so the part of int128.h that exploits a native int128 implementation is dead code in the 9.4 branch. I didn't bother to remove it, thinking that keeping the file looking similar in different branches is more useful. In HEAD only, add a simple test harness for int128.h in src/tools/. In back branches, this does not change the float-timestamps code path. That's not subject to the same kind of overflow risk, since it computes the interval magnitude as float8. (No doubt, when this code was originally written, overflow was disregarded for exactly that reason.) There is a precision hazard instead :-(, but we'll avert our eyes from that question, since no complaints have been reported and that code's deprecated anyway. Kyotaro Horiguchi and Tom Lane Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1490104629.422698.918452336.26FA96B7@webmail.messagingengine.com