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: Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Filip Rembiałkowski <filip.rembialkowski@gmail.com>, 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: 2020-03-30T22:58:20Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Nikita Glukhov <n.gluhov@postgrespro.ru> writes:
> I think now it looks as simple as the whole algorithm is.

Yeah, I think we've gotten checkCond to the point of "there's no
longer anything to take away".

I've marked this RFC, and will push tomorrow unless somebody wants
to object to the loss of backwards compatibility.

			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.