Commit Graph

11 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Bruce Momjian 29275b1d17 Update copyright for 2024
Reported-by: Michael Paquier

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/ZZKTDPxBBMt3C0J9@paquier.xyz

Backpatch-through: 12
2024-01-03 20:49:05 -05:00
Bruce Momjian c8e1ba736b Update copyright for 2023
Backpatch-through: 11
2023-01-02 15:00:37 -05:00
Bruce Momjian 27b77ecf9f Update copyright for 2022
Backpatch-through: 10
2022-01-07 19:04:57 -05:00
Tom Lane 3804539e48 Replace random(), pg_erand48(), etc with a better PRNG API and algorithm.
Standardize on xoroshiro128** as our basic PRNG algorithm, eliminating
a bunch of platform dependencies as well as fundamentally-obsolete PRNG
code.  In addition, this API replacement will ease replacing the
algorithm again in future, should that become necessary.

xoroshiro128** is a few percent slower than the drand48 family,
but it can produce full-width 64-bit random values not only 48-bit,
and it should be much more trustworthy.  It's likely to be noticeably
faster than the platform's random(), depending on which platform you
are thinking about; and we can have non-global state vectors easily,
unlike with random().  It is not cryptographically strong, but neither
are the functions it replaces.

Fabien Coelho, reviewed by Dean Rasheed, Aleksander Alekseev, and myself

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2105241211230.165418@pseudo
2021-11-28 21:33:07 -05:00
Bruce Momjian ca3b37487b Update copyright for 2021
Backpatch-through: 9.5
2021-01-02 13:06:25 -05:00
Bruce Momjian 7559d8ebfa Update copyrights for 2020
Backpatch-through: update all files in master, backpatch legal files through 9.4
2020-01-01 12:21:45 -05:00
Bruce Momjian 97c39498e5 Update copyright for 2019
Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.4
2019-01-02 12:44:25 -05:00
Bruce Momjian 9d4649ca49 Update copyright for 2018
Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.3
2018-01-02 23:30:12 -05:00
Tom Lane e3860ffa4d Initial pgindent run with pg_bsd_indent version 2.0.
The new indent version includes numerous fixes thanks to Piotr Stefaniak.
The main changes visible in this commit are:

* Nicer formatting of function-pointer declarations.
* No longer unexpectedly removes spaces in expressions using casts,
  sizeof, or offsetof.
* No longer wants to add a space in "struct structname *varname", as
  well as some similar cases for const- or volatile-qualified pointers.
* Declarations using PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY are formatted more nicely.
* Fixes bug where comments following declarations were sometimes placed
  with no space separating them from the code.
* Fixes some odd decisions for comments following case labels.
* Fixes some cases where comments following code were indented to less
  than the expected column 33.

On the less good side, it now tends to put more whitespace around typedef
names that are not listed in typedefs.list.  This might encourage us to
put more effort into typedef name collection; it's not really a bug in
indent itself.

There are more changes coming after this round, having to do with comment
indentation and alignment of lines appearing within parentheses.  I wanted
to limit the size of the diffs to something that could be reviewed without
one's eyes completely glazing over, so it seemed better to split up the
changes as much as practical.

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
2017-06-21 14:39:04 -04:00
Bruce Momjian a6fd7b7a5f Post-PG 10 beta1 pgindent run
perltidy run not included.
2017-05-17 16:31:56 -04:00
Tom Lane df1a699e5b Fix integer-overflow problems in interval comparison.
When using integer timestamps, the interval-comparison functions tried
to compute the overall magnitude of an interval as an int64 number of
microseconds.  As reported by Frazer McLean, this overflows for intervals
exceeding about 296000 years, which is bad since we nominally allow
intervals many times larger than that.  That results in wrong comparison
results, and possibly in corrupted btree indexes for columns containing
such large interval values.

To fix, compute the magnitude as int128 instead.  Although some compilers
have native support for int128 calculations, many don't, so create our
own support functions that can do 128-bit addition and multiplication
if the compiler support isn't there.  These support functions are designed
with an eye to allowing the int128 code paths in numeric.c to be rewritten
for use on all platforms, although this patch doesn't do that, or even
provide all the int128 primitives that will be needed for it.

Back-patch as far as 9.4.  Earlier releases did not guard against overflow
of interval values at all (commit 146604ec4 fixed that), so it seems not
very exciting to worry about overly-large intervals for them.

Before 9.6, we did not assume that unreferenced "static inline" functions
would not draw compiler warnings, so omit functions not directly referenced
by timestamp.c, the only present consumer of int128.h.  (We could have
omitted these functions in HEAD too, but since they were written and
debugged on the way to the present patch, and they look likely to be needed
by numeric.c, let's keep them in HEAD.)  I did not bother to try to prevent
such warnings in a --disable-integer-datetimes build, though.

Before 9.5, configure will never define HAVE_INT128, so the part of
int128.h that exploits a native int128 implementation is dead code in the
9.4 branch.  I didn't bother to remove it, thinking that keeping the file
looking similar in different branches is more useful.

In HEAD only, add a simple test harness for int128.h in src/tools/.

In back branches, this does not change the float-timestamps code path.
That's not subject to the same kind of overflow risk, since it computes
the interval magnitude as float8.  (No doubt, when this code was originally
written, overflow was disregarded for exactly that reason.)  There is a
precision hazard instead :-(, but we'll avert our eyes from that question,
since no complaints have been reported and that code's deprecated anyway.

Kyotaro Horiguchi and Tom Lane

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1490104629.422698.918452336.26FA96B7@webmail.messagingengine.com
2017-04-05 23:51:27 -04:00