was causing it not to detect out-of-range float values, as evidenced by
failure of float8 regression test. I corrected that logic and also
modified expected float8 results to account for new error message
generated for out-of-range inputs.
when deciding whether a field is a year field. Assume *anything* longer
than 2 digits (if it isn't a special-case doy) is a valid year.
This should fix the "Y1K" and "Y10K" problems
pointed out by Massimo recently.
Check usage of BC to require a positive-valued year; before just used it
to flip the sign of the year without checking. This led to problems
near year zero.
Allow a 5 digit "concatenated date" of 2 digit year plus day of year.
Do 2->4 digit year correction for 6 and 5 digit "concatenated dates".
Somehow forgot this originally. Guess not many folks use it...
I think NAN is already guaranteed to be there from Jan's work on NUMERIC,
but perhaps HUGE_VAL needs some #ifndef's in the same place.
Should also include "-Infinity" as -HUGE_VAL sometime; not there yet.
to give HAVE_TM_ZONE priority. This fixes glibc2 machines and any other
machine which passes both tests in configure.
Repair HAVE_TM_ZONE code which stuffs tm structure with date type values.
Same problems as were originally there before v6.1, but never noticed.
Thanks to Oleg for nagging :)
where you state a format and arguments. the old behavior required
each appendStringInfo to have to have a sprintf() before it if any
formatting was required.
Also shortened several instances where there were multiple appendStringInfo()
calls in a row, doing nothing more then adding one more word to the String,
instead of doing them all in one call.
over HAVE_INT_TIMEZONE. This may help out linux/glibc2 and Dec Alpha.
Included #error precompiler macros to catch cases where neither is defined
but USE_POSIX_TIME is (shouldn't happen). Hopefully this isn't just
a gcc-ism.
than silently returning zero on some machines. Correct float8 regress test
to agree. Also fix pow() overflow/underflow check to work correctly on
HPUX.
(Someone forgot whether their subroutine signaled errors by a NULL pointer
return value, or a negative integer... I'm surprised gcc -Wall doesn't
catch this...)
