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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: BUG #16419: wrong parsing BC year in to_date() function
Date
Msg-id 663099.1601400389@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: BUG #16419: wrong parsing BC year in to_date() function  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Responses Re: BUG #16419: wrong parsing BC year in to_date() function  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: BUG #16419: wrong parsing BC year in to_date() function  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Re: BUG #16419: wrong parsing BC year in to_date() function  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> On Fri, Sep  4, 2020 at 12:45:36PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
>>> Because we already have the to_date/make_date inconsistency, and the -1
>>> to -2 BC mapping is confusing, and doesn't match Oracle, I think the
>>> clean solution is to change PG 14 to treat -1 as 1 BC, and document the
>>> incompatibility in the release notes.

>> I agree that someone else should write another patch to fix the behavior for
>> v14.  Still suggest committing the proposed patch to master and all supported
>> versions to document the existing behavior correctly.  The fix patch can work
>> from that.

> I think we need to apply the patches to all branches at the same time.
> I am not sure we want to document a behavior we know will change in PG
> 14.

I think this is nuts.  The current behavior is obviously broken;
we should just treat it as a bug and fix it, including back-patching.
I do not think there is a compatibility problem of any significance.
Who out there is going to have an application that is relying on the
ability to insert BC dates in this way?

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Dumping/restoring fails on inherited generated column
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #16419: wrong parsing BC year in to_date() function