"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> 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 4 digits or
! * more, but we now test first for a three-digit doy so anything
! * bigger than two digits had better be an explicit year.
! * - thomas 1999-01-09
! * Back to requiring a 4 digit year. We accept a two digit
! * year farther down. - thomas 2000-03-28
! ***/
! else if (flen >= 4) {
! *tmask = DTK_M(YEAR);
--- 2408,2498 ----
! case 0:
! /*
! * Nothing so far; make a decision about what we think the
! * input is. There used to be lots of heuristics here, but
! * the consensus now is to be paranoid. It *must* be either
! * YYYY-MM-DD (with a more-than-two-digit year field), or the
! * field order defined by DateOrder.
! */
! if (flen >= 3 || DateOrder == DATEORDER_YMD)
! {
! *tmask = DTK_M(YEAR);
regards, tom lane
