On 06/24/2016 02:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Steve Crawford
<scrawf...@pinpointresearch.com> wrote:
To me, 2016-02-30 is an invalid date that should generate an error.


I don't particularly disagree with that, but on the other hand, as
mentioned earlier, to_timestamp() is here for Oracle compatibility,
and if it doesn't do what Oracle's function does, then (1) it's not
useful for people migrating from Oracle and (2) we're making up the
behavior out of whole cloth.  I think things that we invent ourselves
should reject stuff like this, but in a compatibility function we
might want to, say, have compatibility.

Agreed, mostly, but ... how far are we prepared to go on that?

We don't at all. Our goal has never been Oracle compatibility. Yes, we have "made allowances" but we aren't in a position that requires that anymore.

Let's just do it right.

Sincerely,

JD

/me speaking as someone who handles many, many migrations, none of which have ever said, "do we have Oracle compatibility available".

--
Command Prompt, Inc.                  http://the.postgres.company/
                        +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to