Re: Bug in to_timestamp().
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Cc: Alex Ignatov <a.ignatov@postgrespro.ru>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, amul sul <sul_amul@yahoo.co.in>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2016-06-23T17:20:46Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:12 PM, David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote: > to_timestamp with its present behavior is, IMO, a poorly designed function > that would never be accepted today. Concrete proposals for either fixing or > deprecating (or both) are welcome. Fixing it should not cause unnecessary > errors to be raised. Sheesh. Who put you in charge of this? You basically seem like you are trying to shut up anyone who supports this change, and I don't think that's right. Alex's opinion is just as valid as yours - neither more nor less - and he has every right to express it without being told by you that his emails are "not constructive". > My main point is that I'm inclined to deprecate it. I can almost guarantee that would make a lot of users very unhappy. This function is widely used. > My second point is if you are going to use this badly designed function you > need to protect yourself. I agree that anyone using this function should test their format strings carefully. > My understanding is that is not going to change for 9.6. That's exactly what is under discussion here. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Commits
-
Improve behavior of to_timestamp()/to_date() functions
- cf984672427e 12.0 landed
-
Implement TZH and TZM timestamp format patterns
- 11b623dd0a2c 11.0 cited
-
as attache of this mail is patch (to the main tree) with to_char's
- b866d2e2d794 7.1.1 cited