On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:33:02PM +0100, Oliver Ford wrote: > Ok I've made that change in the attached v3. I'm not sure as I'm on > en_US.UTF-8 locale too. Maybe something Windows specific?
This patch applies against master (8485a25a), compiles, and passes a make check. I tested both on my mac laptop, and my linux server. If we want this patch, I'd say it's ready for committer. We may want (and I can't believe I'm saying this) more discussion as to exactly what the strategy for to_number() (and friends) is. Do we want to duplicate Oracle's functionality, or do we want a similar function to do similar things, without necessarily having a goal of identical behavior to oracle? For myself, I pretty much never use the to_date, to_number, or to_timestamp functions except when porting oracle code. I do use the to_char functions on occasion. If strftime were available, I probably wouldn't use them. I would commit this patch and update the TODO with a goal of making to_number as Oracle compatible as is reasonable. -- nw -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers