On 07/03/2016 12:36 PM, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
> On 03.07.2016 07:05, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>> Shouldn't we fix this instead? Sounds like a bug to me. We don't usually
>> want to be bug compatible so it doesn't matter if we break something.
>
> There are previous discussions about such a change, and this was rejected:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/lbjf1v%24a2v%241%40ger.gmane.org
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/A737B7A37273E048B164557ADEF4A58B17C9140E%40ntex2010i.host.magwien.gv.at
>
>
> Hence the new function, which does not collide with the existing
> implementation.
I do not see a clear conclusion in the linked threads. For example Bruce
calls it a bug in one of the emails
(https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/201107200103.p6K13ix10517%40momjian.us).
I think we should fix to_date() to throw an error. Personally I would be
happy if my code broke due to this kind of change since the exception
would reveal an old bug which has been there a long time eating my data.
I cannot see a case where I would have wanted the current behavior.
If there is any legitimate use for the current behavior then we can add
it back as another function.
Andreas
