Re: to_date_valid()

On 7/29/16 1:33 PM, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
> On 27.07.2016 05:00, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> On 07/26/2016 06:25 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> On 7/5/16 4:24 AM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
>>>> But notwithstanding your feeling that you would like your application
>>>> to break if it makes use of this behaviour, it is a change that might
>>>> make some people pretty unhappy - nobody can tell how many.
>>>
>>> What is the use of the existing behavior?  You get back an arbitrary
>>> implementation dependent value.  We don't even guarantee what the value
>>> will be.  If we changed it to return a different implementation
>>> dependent value, would users get upset?
>>
>> No they would not get upset because they wouldn't know.
>>
>> Can we just do the right thing?
>
> I'm in favour of fixing this, and update the documentation.

+1. I'd say that if users complain we can always create an extension (on 
PGXN) that offers the old behavior. Users could even put that function 
before pg_catalog in search_path and get the old behavior back.
-- 
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)   mobile: 512-569-9461