Replace atol with pg_strtoint32_safe in the backend parser and with
strtoint in ECPG to reject overflows when parsing the number of a
positional parameter. With atol from glibc, parameters $2147483648 and
$4294967297 turn into $-2147483648 and $1, respectively.
Author: Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Reviewed-by: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Reviewed-by: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/5d216d1c-91f6-4cbe-95e2-b4cbd930520c@ewie.name
Commit faff8f8e47 allowed integer literals to contain underscores, but
failed to update the lexer's "numericfail" rule. As a result, a
decimal integer literal containing underscores would fail to parse, if
used in an integer range with no whitespace after the first number,
such as "1_001..1_003" in a PL/pgSQL FOR loop.
Fix and backpatch to v16, where support for underscores in integer
literals was added.
Report and patch by Erik Wienhold.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/808ce947-46ec-4628-85fa-3dd600b2c154%40ewie.name
Underscores were added to numeric literals in faff8f8e47. This change
also affected the positional parameters (e.g., $1) rule, which uses
the same production for its digits. But this did not actually work,
because the digits for parameters are processed using atol(), which
does not handle underscores and ignores whatever it cannot parse.
The underscores notation is probably not useful for positional
parameters, so for simplicity revert that rule to its old form that
only accepts digits 0-9.
Author: Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/5d216d1c-91f6-4cbe-95e2-b4cbd930520c%40ewie.name
This allows underscores to be used in integer and numeric literals,
and their corresponding type input functions, for visual grouping.
For example:
1_500_000_000
3.14159_26535_89793
0xffff_ffff
0b_1001_0001
A single underscore is allowed between any 2 digits, or immediately
after the base prefix indicator of non-decimal integers, per SQL:202x
draft.
Peter Eisentraut and Dean Rasheed
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/84aae844-dc55-a4be-86d9-4f0fa405cc97%40enterprisedb.com
Add support for hexadecimal, octal, and binary integer literals:
0x42F
0o273
0b100101
per SQL:202x draft.
This adds support in the lexer as well as in the integer type input
functions.
Reviewed-by: John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>
Reviewed-by: Zhihong Yu <zyu@yugabyte.com>
Reviewed-by: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/b239564c-cad0-b23e-c57e-166d883cb97d@enterprisedb.com
After this, the PostgreSQL lexers no longer accept numeric literals
with trailing non-digits, such as 123abc, which would be scanned as
two tokens: 123 and abc. This is undocumented and surprising, and it
might also interfere with some extended numeric literal syntax being
contemplated for the future.
Reviewed-by: John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/b239564c-cad0-b23e-c57e-166d883cb97d@enterprisedb.com
PostgreSQL currently accepts numeric literals with trailing
non-digits, such as 123abc where the abc is treated as the next token.
This may be a bit surprising. This commit adds test cases for this;
subsequent commits intend to change this behavior.
Reviewed-by: John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/b239564c-cad0-b23e-c57e-166d883cb97d@enterprisedb.com
Many older tests where written in a style like
SELECT '' AS two, i.* FROM INT2_TBL
where the first column indicated the number of expected result rows.
This has gotten increasingly out of date, as the test data fixtures
have expanded, so a lot of these were wrong and misleading. Moreover,
this style isn't really necessary, since the psql output already shows
the number of result rows.
To clean this up, remove all those extra columns.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1a25312b-2686-380d-3c67-7a69094a999f%40enterprisedb.com
as methods for implementing the DISTINCT step. This eliminates the former
performance gap between DISTINCT and GROUP BY, and also makes it possible
to do SELECT DISTINCT on datatypes that only support hashing not sorting.
SELECT DISTINCT ON is still always implemented by sorting; it would take
executor changes to support hashing that, and it's not clear it's worth
the trouble.
This is a release-note-worthy incompatibility from previous PG versions,
since SELECT DISTINCT can no longer be counted on to deliver sorted output
without explicitly saying ORDER BY. (Anyone who can't cope with that
can consider turning off enable_hashagg.)
Several regression test queries needed to have ORDER BY added to preserve
stable output order. I fixed the ones that manifested here, but there
might be some other cases that show up on other platforms.
after trying to resolve the item as an input-column name. This allows us
to be compliant with the SQL92 spec for queries that fall within the spec,
while still accepting the same out-of-spec queries as 6.5 did. You'll only
lose if there is an output column name that is the same as an input
column name, but doesn't refer to the same value. 7.0 will interpret
such a GROUP BY spec differently than 6.5 did. No way around that, because
6.5 was clearly not spec compliant.
interpret a column name as an output column alias (targetlist AS name),
ather than a real column name as it ought to. According to the spec,
only ORDER BY should look at output column names. I left in GROUP BY's
willingness to use an output column number ('GROUP BY 2'), even though
this is also contrary to the spec --- again, only ORDER BY is supposed
to accept that. But there is no possible reason to want to GROUP BY
an integer constant, so keeping this old behavior won't break any
SQL-compliant queries. DISTINCT ON will behave the same as GROUP BY.
Change numerology regress test, which depended on the incorrect
behavior.
