"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ooooh - that must have been a side effect of the 'only parse dates in set
> format' changes...was it intended?
Yes, I thought so. The relevant bit of the change is here:
! /***
!* Enough digits to be unequivocal year? Used to test for
> > I can't see any reason why we shouldn't allow it???
>
> Works here(7.4beta2):
>
> andreak=# select '111-01-01'::date;
> date
> -
> 0111-01-01
> (1 row)
Ooooh - that must have been a side effect of the 'only parse dates in set
format' changes...was it intended?
Chris
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 15 September 2003 09:09, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Are we going to address the fact that you can't enter 3 digit years without
> a leading 0?
>
> australia=# select '111-01-01'::date;
> ERROR: Bad date external representation
Hi,
Are we going to address the fact that you can't enter 3 digit years without
a leading 0?
australia=# select '111-01-01'::date;
ERROR: Bad date external representation '111-01-01'
australia=# select '0111-01-01'::date;
date
0111-01-01
(1 row)
I can't see any reason why we
