Re: New to_timestamp implementation is pretty strict - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: New to_timestamp implementation is pretty strict
Date
Msg-id 23118.1228152165@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: New to_timestamp implementation is pretty strict  ("Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: New to_timestamp implementation is pretty strict  (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Another point here is that we have always accepted single digits in dates:

Yeah, but that's the general datetime input code, which has rather
different goals than to_timestamp().

After thinking about it I'm inclined to feel that SS and friends should
insist on exactly 2 digits.  If you want to allow 1-or-2-digits then use
FMSS, just like the error message tells you.  (However, I have a vague
feeling that Oracle doesn't insist on this, and in the end we ought to
follow Oracle's behavior.  Can anyone check?)

In any case, it's certainly broken that the last field behaves
differently from not-last fields.  I'm not all that set on whether we
insist on two digits or not, but I do think the inconsistency needs
to be fixed.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add support for matching wildcard server certificates to the new
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add support for matching wildcard server certificates to the new