Re: BUG #16419: wrong parsing BC year in to_date() function - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: BUG #16419: wrong parsing BC year in to_date() function
Date
Msg-id 20200930190534.GF26841@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: BUG #16419: wrong parsing BC year in to_date() function  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: BUG #16419: wrong parsing BC year in to_date() function  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 02:50:31PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 02:11:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Hm, I read your reference to "the release notes" as suggesting that
> >> we should change it only in a major release, ie HEAD only (and it
> >> looks like David read it the same).  If you meant minor release notes,
> >> then we're on the same page.
> 
> > Yes, I was thinking just the major release notes.  What are you
> > suggesting, and what did you ultimately decide to do?  What I didn't
> > want to do was to document the old behavior in the old docs and change
> > it in PG 14.
> 
> Actually, I was just finishing up back-patching the patch I posted
> yesterday.  I think we should just fix it, not document that it's
> broken.

Agreed, that's what I wanted.  You stated in a later email you couldn't
convince yourself of the backpatch, which is why I asked.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             https://enterprisedb.com

  The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #16419: wrong parsing BC year in to_date() function
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #16419: wrong parsing BC year in to_date() function