On 05.07.2016 06:05, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2016-07-05 2:39 GMT+02:00 Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum <adsm...@wars-nicht.de
<mailto:adsm...@wars-nicht.de>>:
On 04.07.2016 18:37, Pavel Stehule wrote:
I don't know if the name "strict" is best, but the name
"validate" is
not good too. Current to_date does some validations too.
Obviously not enough, because it allows invalid dates. I'd say that
the current to_date() merely validates the input format for string
parsing, and that the date is in range. But there is not much
validation on the date itself.
So the name can't be "strict" because of the conflict with "NULL"
handling, and you don't like "valid" - what other options do you offer?
I have not - so third option looks best for me - it can be long name
"only_correct_date", "only_valid_date", "only_valid_date_on_input" ...
Then you don't have "to_date" in the function name, but still use
"valid" in the name. How is that useful to remember the function? Where
"to_date_valid" already gives you the idea that it is "to_date" with an
additional "valid"ator.
Don't make it overly complicated.
--
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:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
