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

From David E. Wheeler
Subject Re: New to_timestamp implementation is pretty strict
Date
Msg-id 7E82016B-4E21-4DED-943F-339A3FD3B02C@kineticode.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: New to_timestamp implementation is pretty strict  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: New to_timestamp implementation is pretty strict
List pgsql-hackers
On Dec 1, 2008, at 3:52 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

>> I'm generally in favor of being generous in the input one can accept,
>> but in this case it seems ambiguous to me. Is that supposed to be :30
>> or :03? There's no way to tell.
>
> But notice that we are allowing a single digit for the hour and minute
> fields.  It's inconsistent that the last field works differently.
> (And it is that it's the last field, not that it's SS --- try minutes
> as the last field.)

Oh, well yeah, it should be consistent. But I'm still not sure that :3  
should be allowed. OTOH, who does that, anyway?

Best,

David


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Dave Page"
Date:
Subject: Re: New to_timestamp implementation is pretty strict
Next
From: "Robert Haas"
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add support for matching wildcard server certificates to the new