Re: Bug in to_timestamp().

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Robert Haas
Тема Re: Bug in to_timestamp().
Дата
Msg-id CA+Tgmoa65k+PQNNAu717DdjaA9-uGMWt=ov0NUWmUXggZRRY3A@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Bug in to_timestamp().  (Steve Crawford <scrawford@pinpointresearch.com>)
Ответы Re: Bug in to_timestamp().  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Bug in to_timestamp().  (Gavin Flower <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Steve Crawford
<scrawford@pinpointresearch.com> wrote:
> My observation has been that the PostgreSQL development group aims for
> correctness and the elimination of surprising results. This was part of the
> reason to eliminate a number of automatic casts to dates in earlier
> versions.
>
> To me, 2016-02-30 is an invalid date that should generate an error.
> Automatically and silently changing it to be 2016-03-01 strikes me as a
> behavior I'd expect from a certain other open-source database, not
> PostgreSQL.

I don't particularly disagree with that, but on the other hand, as
mentioned earlier, to_timestamp() is here for Oracle compatibility,
and if it doesn't do what Oracle's function does, then (1) it's not
useful for people migrating from Oracle and (2) we're making up the
behavior out of whole cloth.  I think things that we invent ourselves
should reject stuff like this, but in a compatibility function we
might want to, say, have compatibility.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Postgres_fdw join pushdown - wrong results with whole-row reference
Следующее
От: Peter Geoghegan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: tuplesort.c's copytup_index() is dead code