On 03.07.2016 07:05, Jaime Casanova wrote:
El 2/7/2016 20:33, "Euler Taveira" <eu...@timbira.com.br
<mailto:eu...@timbira.com.br>> escribió:
 > On 02-07-2016 22:04, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
 > > The attached patch adds a new function "to_date_valid()" which will
 > > validate the date and return an error if the input and output date do
 > > not match. Tests included, documentation update as well.
 > >
 > Why don't you add a third parameter (say, validate = true | false)
 > instead of creating another function? The new parameter could default to
 > false to not break compatibility.

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:


Hence the new function, which does not collide with the existing implementation.


                                Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
German PostgreSQL User Group
European PostgreSQL User Group - Board of Directors
Volunteer Regional Contact, Germany - PostgreSQL Project

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

Reply via email to