Horton

Re: fix for BUG #3720: wrong results at using ltree

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

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Nikita Glukhov <n.gluhov@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Filip Rembiałkowski <filip.rembialkowski@gmail.com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>, Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>, Oleg Bartunov <obartunov@postgrespro.ru>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>
Date: 2020-03-30T21:59:26Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Nikita Glukhov <n.gluhov@postgrespro.ru> writes:
> On 30.03.2020 21:00, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hence, new patch versions that do it like that.  (0002 is unchanged.)

> I tried to simplify a bit loops in checkCond() by merging two of them into
> one with an explicit exit condition.  Also I added return statement after
> this loop, so it's now clear that we can't fall into next "while" loop.

I dunno, that doesn't really seem clearer to me (although some of it
might be that you expended no effort on making the comments match
the new code logic).

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Back-patch addition of stack overflow and interrupt checks for lquery.

  2. Fix lquery's NOT handling, and add ability to quantify non-'*' items.

  3. Improve error messages in ltree_in and lquery_in.

  4. Fix lquery's behavior for consecutive '*' items.

  5. Protect against overflow of ltree.numlevel and lquery.numlevel.