Re: to_date_valid() - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Joshua D. Drake
Subject Re: to_date_valid()
Date
Msg-id 579823DF.3080903@commandprompt.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: to_date_valid()  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: to_date_valid()  (Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum <adsmail@wars-nicht.de>)
Re: to_date_valid()  (Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum <adsmail@wars-nicht.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 07/26/2016 06:25 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 7/5/16 4:24 AM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
>> But notwithstanding your feeling that you would like your application
>> to break if it makes use of this behaviour, it is a change that might
>> make some people pretty unhappy - nobody can tell how many.
>
> What is the use of the existing behavior?  You get back an arbitrary
> implementation dependent value.  We don't even guarantee what the value
> will be.  If we changed it to return a different implementation
> dependent value, would users get upset?

No they would not get upset because they wouldn't know.

Can we just do the right thing?

JD




-- 
Command Prompt, Inc.                  http://the.postgres.company/                        +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Date:
Subject: Re: Constraint merge and not valid status
Next
From: Etsuro Fujita
Date:
Subject: Oddity in EXPLAIN for foreign/custom join pushdown plans