On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 09:05:37AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 05:08:17PM +0530, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
This
might be a case where throwing an error is actually better than trying
to make sense of the input.
I don't feel super-strongly about this,
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Rushabh Lathia
rushabh.lat...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm right it has some inconsistency when year length is 6. But the patch
is based on assumption that 5-digit number is a year, because YMD
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 05:08:17PM +0530, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
This
might be a case where throwing an error is actually better than trying
to make sense of the input.
I don't feel super-strongly about this, but I offer it as a question
for reflection.
At the same
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Rushabh Lathia
rushabh.lat...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm right it has some inconsistency when year length is 6. But the patch
is based on assumption that 5-digit number is a year, because YMD and HMS
require at least six digits. Now Year with 6-digit number its
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 10:19:38AM +, Haribabu kommi wrote:
On 03 October 2013 19:30 Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:54:14AM +0530, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
Thanks Bruce.
Yes for me main
On 03 October 2013 19:30 Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:54:14AM +0530, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
Thanks Bruce.
Yes for me main problem was to make assumption that a 5-digit number
is a year, as was bit worried about side effect of that assumption in
the date/time module. I
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 10:19:38AM +, Haribabu kommi wrote:
On 03 October 2013 19:30 Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:54:14AM +0530, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
Thanks Bruce.
Yes for me main problem was to make assumption that a 5-digit number
is a year, as was bit
Thanks Bruce.
Yes for me main problem was to make assumption that a 5-digit number is a
year,
as was bit worried about side effect of that assumption in the date/time
module. I
did tested patch shared by you with various test and so far it looks good
to me.
I would like reviewer to review/test
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:54:14AM +0530, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
Thanks Bruce.
Yes for me main problem was to make assumption that a 5-digit number is a
year,
as was bit worried about side effect of that assumption in the date/time
module. I
did tested patch shared by you with various test
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 10:42:17AM +, Haribabu kommi wrote:
If the changes are very high to deal all scenarios,
I feel it is better do it only in scenarios where the use cases needs it,
until
it is not confusing
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:00:30AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 10:42:17AM +, Haribabu kommi wrote:
If the changes are very high to deal all scenarios,
I feel it is better do it only in
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 10:42:17AM +, Haribabu kommi wrote:
If the changes are very high to deal all scenarios,
I feel it is better do it only in scenarios where the use cases needs it,
until
it is not confusing users.
The rest can be documented.
Any other opinions/suggestions
Sorry for delay in reply.
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Haribabu kommi
haribabu.ko...@huawei.comwrote:
On Tue, 17 September 2013 14:33 Rushabh Lathia wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Haribabu kommi
haribabu.ko...@huawei.com wrote:
***On *14 August 2013 Rushabh Lathia
On 27 September 2013 15:04 Rushabh Lathia wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Haribabu kommi
haribabu.ko...@huawei.commailto:haribabu.ko...@huawei.com wrote:
I feel changing the year value to accept the length (4) is not simple.
So many places the year length crossing more than length 4 is
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Haribabu kommi
haribabu.ko...@huawei.comwrote:
*On *14 August 2013 Rushabh Lathia wrote:**
** **
postgres=# create table test ( a timestamptz);
CREATE TABLE
** **
-- Date with year 1000
postgres=# insert into test values ( 'Sat Mar 11
On Tue, 17 September 2013 14:33 Rushabh Lathia wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Haribabu kommi
haribabu.ko...@huawei.commailto:haribabu.ko...@huawei.com wrote:
On 14 August 2013 Rushabh Lathia wrote:
postgres=# create table test ( a timestamptz);
CREATE TABLE
-- Date with year 1000
On 14 August 2013 Rushabh Lathia wrote:
postgres=# create table test ( a timestamptz);
CREATE TABLE
-- Date with year 1000
postgres=# insert into test values ( 'Sat Mar 11 23:58:48 1000 IST');
INSERT 0 1
-- Now try with year 1 it will return error
postgres=# insert into test values ( 'Sat
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 1:08 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Rushabh Lathia rushabh.lat...@gmail.com writes:
PFA patch and share your input/suggestions.
I think this needs review. Please add it to the next commitfest.
Done.
Here is latest patch with testcase added to regression.
Rushabh Lathia rushabh.lat...@gmail.com writes:
PFA patch and share your input/suggestions.
I think this needs review. Please add it to the next commitfest.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to
19 matches
Mail list logo
