Re: What happened to the is_ family of functions proposal?
От | Colin 't Hart |
---|---|
Тема | Re: What happened to the is_ |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTi=b799xu1qfrPaLh7vEz8fYW+ihqs+Cze=ks2nO@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на |
Re: What happened to the is_ |
Ответы |
Re: What happened to the is_ |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 20 September 2010 16:54, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote: > > > On 09/20/2010 10:29 AM, Colin 't Hart wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Back in 2002 these were proposed, what happened to them? >> >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/2002-09/msg00406.php > > > 2002 is a looooooooong time ago. <snip> > I think to_date is the wrong gadget to use here. You should probably be using the date input routine and trapping any dataexception. e.g.: > > test_date := date_in(textout(some_text)); > > In plpgsql you'd put that inside a begin/exception/end block that traps SQLSTATE '22000' which is the class covering dataexceptions. So it's not possible using pure SQL unless one writes a function? Are the is_<type> family of functions still desired? Also, where are the to_<type> conversions done? Thanks, Colin
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: