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 893081.1601493066@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  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 02:50:31PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.

Oh, I see where our wires are crossed.  I meant that I couldn't
convince myself to back-patch the make_timestamp() change.
(I'm still willing to listen to an argument to do so, if anyone
wants to make one --- but that part feels more like a feature
addition than a bug fix.)

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #16419: wrong parsing BC year in to_date() function
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: __pg_log_level in anonynous enum should be initialized? (Was: pgsql: Change SHA2 implementation based on OpenSSL to use EVP digest ro)