On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 9:38 PM, Vitaly Burovoy <vitaly.buro...@gmail.com> wrote: >> However, I'm not sure we ought to tinker with the behavior in this >> area. If YYYY-MM-DD is going to accept things that are not of the >> format YYYY-MM-DD, and I'd argue that -1-06-01 is not in that format, > > It is not about format, it is about values.
I disagree. In a format like "-1-06-01", you want the first minus to indicate negation and the other two to be a separator. That's not very far away from wanting the database to read your mind. > Because it is inconvenient a little. If one value ("-2345") is passed, > another one ("2346 BC") is got. In the other case a programmer must > check for negative value, and if so change a sign and add "BC" to the > format. Moreover the programmer must keep in mind that it is not > enough to have usual date format "DD/MM/YYYY", because sometimes there > can be "BC" part. Yeah, well, that's life. You can write an alternative function to construct dates that works the way you like, and that may well be a good idea. But I think *this* change is not a good idea, and accordingly I vote we reject this patch. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers