Horton

Re: Add support for AT LOCAL

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org>, cary huang <hcary328@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2023-10-17T16:45:28Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

I wrote:
> Yeah, the same thing occurred to me in the shower this morning, and it
> does seem to work!  We can replace both loops with a %= operator, at
> least if we're willing to assume C99 division semantics, which seems
> pretty safe in 2023.

Whoops, no: for negative starting values we'd need truncate-towards-
minus-infinity division whereas C99 specifies truncate-towards-zero.
However, the attached does pass for me on cfarm111 as well as my
usual dev machine.

Presumably this is a pre-existing bug that also appears in back
branches.  But in the interests of science I propose that we
back-patch only the test case and see which machine(s) fail it
before back-patching the code change.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Dodge a compiler bug affecting timetz_zone/timetz_izone.

  2. Back-patch test cases for timetz_zone/timetz_izone.

  3. Add regression test coverage for timetz_izone().

  4. Add support for AT LOCAL

  5. doc: Mention timezone(zone, time) in section for AT TIME ZONE

  6. Use HASH_BLOBS for xidhash.