Re: Problem with zero year - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Problem with zero year
Date
Msg-id 200903171924.n2HJOvS12684@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Problem with zero year  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > The problem is that the 2-digit year check is for <=2 digits, not
> > exactly two digits:
> > ...
> > This leads to some unexpected outputs:
> 
> >     test=> select '1-1-0'::date;
> >        date
> >     ------------
> >      2000-01-01
> 
> We've interpreted that like that since 7.4, without complaints; and
> I think it was an intentional change then (since 7.3 doesn't accept it).
> I do not recommend changing it.

OK, the release note text will be:
Reject year '0 BC' and years '000' and '0000' (Tom)  Previously these were interpreted as 1 BC.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: DTrace probes broken in HEAD on Solaris?
Next
From: Andrew Gierth
Date:
Subject: Re: hstore improvements?