On 27 September 2013 15:04 Rushabh Lathia wrote:
>>On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Haribabu kommi <haribabu.kommi@huawei.com> wrote:
>>I feel changing the year value to accept the length (>4) is not simple.
>>So many places the year length crossing more than length 4 is not considered.
>>Search in the code with “yyyy” and correct all related paths.
>Right, changing the year value to accept the length (>4) is not simple because so
>many places the year length crossing plus most of the please having assumption
>that it will be always <4.
>Tried to fix issue more couple of places but I don't feeling like its always going
>to be safe to assume that we covered all path.
>Still looking and wondering if we can do change in any simple place or whether
>we can find any other smarter way to fix the issue.
If the changes are very high to deal all scenarios,
I feel it is better do it only in scenarios where the use cases needs it, until it is not confusing users.
The rest can be documented.
Any other opinions/suggestions welcome.
Regards,
Hari babu.
pgsql-hackers by date:
Соглашаюсь с условиями обработки персональных данных