On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 09:05:37AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 05:08:17PM +0530, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > > This > > might be a case where throwing an error is actually better than trying > > to make sense of the input. > > > > I don't feel super-strongly about this, but I offer it as a question > > for reflection. > > > > > > > > At the same time I do agree fixing this kind of issue in postgres datetime > > module > > is bit difficult without some assumption. Personally I feel patch do add > > some > > value but not fully compatible with all kind of year field format. > > > > Bruce, > > > > Do you have any thought/suggestion ? > > I think Robert is asking the right question: Is it better to accept > 5-digit years, or throw an error? Doing anything new with 6-digit years > is going to break the much more common use of YMD or HMS. > > The timestamp data type only supports values to year 294276, so the full > 6-digit range isn't even supported. ('DATE' does go higher.) > > The entire date/time processing allows imprecise input, so throwing an > error on clear 5-digit years seems wrong. Basically, we have gone down > the road of interpreting date/time input liberally, so throwing an error > on a clear 5-digit year seems odd. > > On the other hand, this has never come up before because no one cared > about 5-digit years, so you could argue that 5-digit years require > precise specification, which would favor throwing an error.
Patch applied to support 5+ digit years in non-ISO timestamp/date strings, where appropriate. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers