to_char/to_number loses sign

Started by Peter Eisentrautover 21 years ago6 messageshackers
Jump to latest
#1Peter Eisentraut
peter_e@gmx.net

This is from one of the examples in the documentation:

SELECT to_char(-485, '999S');
to_char
---------
485-

The reverse doesn't work as well:

SEKLECT to_number('485-', '999S');
to_number
-----------
485

Is this a bug or intentional?

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

#2Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: Peter Eisentraut (#1)
Re: to_char/to_number loses sign

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:

SELECT to_number('485-', '999S');
to_number
-----------
485

Is this a bug or intentional?

Tracing through this, it looks like the problem is that NUM_processor()
has no switch case for NUM_S (nor does the default case raise an error,
which seems a risky practice to me).

Karel, can you verify this and submit a fix?

regards, tom lane

#3Karel Zak
zakkr@zf.jcu.cz
In reply to: Tom Lane (#2)
Re: to_char/to_number loses sign

On Sat, 2004-10-23 at 17:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:

SELECT to_number('485-', '999S');
to_number
-----------
485

Is this a bug or intentional?

Tracing through this, it looks like the problem is that NUM_processor()
has no switch case for NUM_S (nor does the default case raise an error,
which seems a risky practice to me).

Karel, can you verify this and submit a fix?

Yes, you're right. It strange, but NUM_S missing there. The conversion
from string to number is less stable part of formatting.c...

I have already 2000 lines of code of new generation of to_..()
functions. But all will available in 8.1.

The patch is in the attachment.

Karel

--
Karel Zak
http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr

Attachments:

pgsql-formatting-10252004.patchtext/x-patch; charset=us-ascii; name=pgsql-formatting-10252004.patchDownload+3-2
#4Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: Karel Zak (#3)
Re: to_char/to_number loses sign

Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz> writes:

Yes, you're right. It strange, but NUM_S missing there. The conversion
from string to number is less stable part of formatting.c...

The patch is in the attachment.

This patch causes the regression tests to fail. I think you need to
consider the to_char() side of it more carefully.

regards, tom lane

#5Karel Zak
zakkr@zf.jcu.cz
In reply to: Tom Lane (#4)
sign parsing (was: Re: [HACKERS] to_char/to_number loses sign)

On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 13:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:

Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz> writes:

Yes, you're right. It strange, but NUM_S missing there. The conversion
from string to number is less stable part of formatting.c...

The patch is in the attachment.

This patch causes the regression tests to fail. I think you need to
consider the to_char() side of it more carefully.

Sorry of this in beta version...

The problem was bigger than I expected. I hope it's fixed in actual
patch. All regression tests pass.

The patch changes two lines in regression test too. It's because old
version of to_number() allows to use wrong number input and this input
was in regression test. The call to_char(-0.01, ' 9 9 . 9 9 S'); never
produced ' . 0 1 -' but always ' . 0 1-' only.

-SELECT '' AS to_number_13, to_number(' . 0 1 -', ' 9 9 . 9 9 S');
+SELECT '' AS to_number_13, to_number(' . 0 1-', ' 9 9 . 9 9 S');
                                            ^^^
 'S' = locale sign and it must be always anchored to last or first
number.

Again sorry,
Karel

--
Karel Zak
http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr

Attachments:

pgsql-formatting-10272004.patch.gzapplication/x-gzip; name=pgsql-formatting-10272004.patch.gzDownload
#6Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: Karel Zak (#5)
Re: sign parsing (was: Re: [HACKERS] to_char/to_number loses sign)

Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz> writes:

The problem was bigger than I expected. I hope it's fixed in actual
patch. All regression tests pass.

Applied, thanks.

regards, tom lane