Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think the OP is probably running a version that doesn't include > the Jan 7 commit, which was effectively undone by the Jan 25 > commit for CVS HEAD. It sure looks like it. > It looks like this was intentional based on spec behavior > of overlay(), but should we consider maintaining the historical > behavior instead? I know I read through the spec (several versions of it) related to this issue when I reviewed the patch, and if memory serves the 9.0 behavior is what the spec requires. Obviously that's a behavior change, so it can't be back-patched. I'm inclined to think the previous behavior was pretty marginal, and there is certainly a workaround -- omit the third parameter rather than specifying a negative number: SELECT substring(B'1111000000000001' from 5); substring -------------- 000000000001 (1 row)
SELECT substring(B'1111000000000001' from 4); substring --------------- 1000000000001 (1 row) We have maintained nonstandard behavior in the past for compatibility reasons, so it's a fair question; however, I'm inclined toward the standard on this one. -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
