Thread: to_char/to_number loses sign

This is from one of the examples in the documentation:

SELECT to_char(-485, '999S');to_char
---------485-

The reverse doesn't work as well:

SEKLECT to_number('485-', '999S');to_number
-----------      485

Is this a bug or intentional?

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> SELECT to_number('485-', '999S');
>  to_number
> -----------
>        485

> Is this a bug or intentional?

Tracing through this, it looks like the problem is that NUM_processor()
has no switch case for NUM_S (nor does the default case raise an error,
which seems a risky practice to me).

Karel, can you verify this and submit a fix?
        regards, tom lane

On Sat, 2004-10-23 at 17:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > SELECT to_number('485-', '999S');
> >  to_number
> > -----------
> >        485
>
> > Is this a bug or intentional?
>
> Tracing through this, it looks like the problem is that NUM_processor()
> has no switch case for NUM_S (nor does the default case raise an error,
> which seems a risky practice to me).
>
> Karel, can you verify this and submit a fix?

Yes, you're right. It strange, but NUM_S missing there. The conversion
from string to number is less stable part of formatting.c...

I have already 2000 lines of code of new generation of to_..()
functions. But all will available in 8.1.

The patch is in the attachment.

    Karel

--
Karel Zak
http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr

Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz> writes:
> Yes, you're right. It strange, but NUM_S missing there. The conversion
> from string to number is less stable part of formatting.c...

> The patch is in the attachment.

This patch causes the regression tests to fail.  I think you need to
consider the to_char() side of it more carefully.
        regards, tom lane