Re: to_date_valid()
От | Andreas Karlsson |
---|---|
Тема | Re: to_date_valid() |
Дата | |
Msg-id | af97b147-3542-7a55-b651-e0ecae0c8c00@proxel.se обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: to_date_valid() (Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum <adsmail@wars-nicht.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: to_date_valid()
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 07/03/2016 12:36 PM, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote: > On 03.07.2016 07:05, Jaime Casanova wrote: >> Shouldn't we fix this instead? Sounds like a bug to me. We don't usually >> want to be bug compatible so it doesn't matter if we break something. > > There are previous discussions about such a change, and this was rejected: > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/lbjf1v%24a2v%241%40ger.gmane.org > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/A737B7A37273E048B164557ADEF4A58B17C9140E%40ntex2010i.host.magwien.gv.at > > > Hence the new function, which does not collide with the existing > implementation. I do not see a clear conclusion in the linked threads. For example Bruce calls it a bug in one of the emails (https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/201107200103.p6K13ix10517%40momjian.us). I think we should fix to_date() to throw an error. Personally I would be happy if my code broke due to this kind of change since the exception would reveal an old bug which has been there a long time eating my data. I cannot see a case where I would have wanted the current behavior. If there is any legitimate use for the current behavior then we can add it back as another function. Andreas
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: