On 05.07.2016 04:33, David G. Johnston wrote:
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
<adsm...@wars-nicht.de <mailto:adsm...@wars-nicht.de>>wrote:

    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?

​We don't have to change the name...we could do something like how
RegularExpressions work - like (?i) - and just add  a new modifier ​code.

​'~YYYY-MI-DD' --that's a leading tilde, could be anything - even
something like "HMYYYY-MI-DD" for "historical mode"

Where to_timestamp() already uses HH for the hour? If you add another "H", that surely is confusing.

It seems that fixing it is back on the table, possibly even for 9.6
since this is such a hideous bug - one that closely resembles a cockroach ;)

9.6 is already in Beta, people are testing their applications against it. This would be a huge break, plus an API change - something you don't add in a Beta.

                                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