Re: Bug in to_timestamp().

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Robert Haas
Тема Re: Bug in to_timestamp().
Дата
Msg-id CA+TgmoaWTgbtd2RTwVvySMVoOcHmWq66rCCxtVywOOX3FJy4tQ@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Bug in to_timestamp().  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: Bug in to_timestamp().  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Bug in to_timestamp().  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
Список 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



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Bug in to_timestamp().
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Rethinking representation of partial-aggregate steps