Fix parsing of ISO-8601 interval fields with exponential notation.

tglsfdc · tglsfdc · commit f0d0394e84ce · 2023-02-20T16:55:59.000-05:00
Historically we've accepted interval input like 'P.1e10D'. This is probably an accident of having used strtod() to do the parsing, rather than something anyone intended, but it's been that way for a long time. Commit e39f990 broke this by trying to parse the integer and fractional parts separately, without accounting for the possibility of an exponent. In principle that coding allowed for precise conversions of field values wider than 15 decimal digits, but that does not seem like a goal worth sweating bullets for. So, rather than trying to manage an exponent on top of the existing complexity, let's just revert to the previous coding that used strtod() by itself. We can still improve on the old code to the extent of allowing the value to range up to 1.0e15 rather than only INT_MAX. (Allowing more than that risks creating problems due to precision loss: the converted fractional part might have absolute value more than 1. Perhaps that could be dealt with in some way, but it really does not seem worth additional effort.) Per bug #17795 from Alexander Lakhin. Back-patch to v15 where the faulty code came in. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17795-748d6db3ed95d313@postgresql.org
diff --git a/src/backend/utils/adt/datetime.c b/src/backend/utils/adt/datetime.c
@@ -3702,46 +3702,38 @@ DecodeInterval(char **field, int *ftype, int nf, int range,
 static int
 ParseISO8601Number(char *str, char **endptr, int64 *ipart, double *fpart)
 {
-	int			sign = 1;
+	double		val;
 
-	*ipart = 0;
-	*fpart = 0.0;
-
-	/* Parse sign if there is any */
-	if (*str == '-')
-	{
-		sign = -1;
-		str++;
-	}
-
-	*endptr = str;
+	/*
+	 * Historically this has accepted anything that strtod() would take,
+	 * notably including "e" notation, so continue doing that.  This is
+	 * slightly annoying because the precision of double is less than that of
+	 * int64, so we would lose accuracy for inputs larger than 2^53 or so.
+	 * However, historically we rejected inputs outside the int32 range,
+	 * making that concern moot.  What we do now is reject abs(val) above
+	 * 1.0e15 (a round number a bit less than 2^50), so that any accepted
+	 * value will have an exact integer part, and thereby a fraction part with
+	 * abs(*fpart) less than 1.  In the absence of field complaints it doesn't
+	 * seem worth working harder.
+	 */
+	if (!(isdigit((unsigned char) *str) || *str == '-' || *str == '.'))
+		return DTERR_BAD_FORMAT;
 	errno = 0;
-
-	/* Parse int64 part if there is any */
-	if (isdigit((unsigned char) **endptr))
-		*ipart = strtoi64(*endptr, endptr, 10) * sign;
-
-	/* Parse fractional part if there is any */
-	if (**endptr == '.')
-	{
-		/*
-		 * As in ParseFraction, some versions of strtod insist on seeing some
-		 * digits after '.', but some don't.  We want to allow zero digits
-		 * after '.' as long as there were some before it.
-		 */
-		if (isdigit((unsigned char) *(*endptr + 1)))
-			*fpart = strtod(*endptr, endptr) * sign;
-		else
-		{
-			(*endptr)++;		/* advance over '.' */
-			str++;				/* so next test will fail if no digits */
-		}
-	}
-
-	/* did we not see anything that looks like a number? */
+	val = strtod(str, endptr);
+	/* did we not see anything that looks like a double? */
 	if (*endptr == str || errno != 0)
 		return DTERR_BAD_FORMAT;
-
+	/* watch out for overflow, including infinities; reject NaN too */
+	if (isnan(val) || val < -1.0e15 || val > 1.0e15)
+		return DTERR_FIELD_OVERFLOW;
+	/* be very sure we truncate towards zero (cf dtrunc()) */
+	if (val >= 0)
+		*ipart = (int64) floor(val);
+	else
+		*ipart = (int64) -floor(-val);
+	*fpart = val - *ipart;
+	/* Callers expect this to hold */
+	Assert(*fpart > -1.0 && *fpart < 1.0);
 	return 0;
 }
 
diff --git a/src/test/regress/expected/interval.out b/src/test/regress/expected/interval.out
@@ -975,6 +975,12 @@ select interval 'P.1Y0M3DT4H5M6S';
  1 mon 3 days 04:05:06
 (1 row)
 
+select interval 'P10.5e4Y';  -- not per spec, but we've historically taken it
+   interval   
+--------------
+ 105000 years
+(1 row)
+
 select interval 'P.Y0M3DT4H5M6S';  -- error
 ERROR:  invalid input syntax for type interval: "P.Y0M3DT4H5M6S"
 LINE 1: select interval 'P.Y0M3DT4H5M6S';
@@ -1081,13 +1087,13 @@ select interval 'PT2562047788:00:54.775807';
 select interval 'PT2562047788.0152155019444';
              interval              
 -----------------------------------
- @ 2562047788 hours 54.775807 secs
+ @ 2562047788 hours 54.775429 secs
 (1 row)
 
 select interval 'PT-2562047788.0152155022222';
                interval                
 ---------------------------------------
- @ 2562047788 hours 54.775808 secs ago
+ @ 2562047788 hours 54.775429 secs ago
 (1 row)
 
 -- overflow each date/time field
diff --git a/src/test/regress/sql/interval.sql b/src/test/regress/sql/interval.sql
@@ -328,6 +328,7 @@ select interval 'P1.0Y0M3DT4H5M6S';
 select interval 'P1.1Y0M3DT4H5M6S';
 select interval 'P1.Y0M3DT4H5M6S';
 select interval 'P.1Y0M3DT4H5M6S';
+select interval 'P10.5e4Y';  -- not per spec, but we've historically taken it
 select interval 'P.Y0M3DT4H5M6S';  -- error
 
 -- test a couple rounding cases that changed since 8.3 w/ HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP.
