| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Arthur Zakirov <zaartur(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Juan José Santamaría Flecha <juanjo(dot)santamaria(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Allow to_date() and to_timestamp() to accept localized names |
| Date: | 2020-01-23 04:42:01 |
| Message-ID: | 12102.1579754521@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Arthur Zakirov <zaartur(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 2020/01/23 7:11, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Closer examination shows that the "max" argument is pretty bogus as
>> well. It doesn't do anything except confuse the reader, because there
>> are no cases where the value passed is less than the maximum array entry
>> length, so it never acts to change seq_search's behavior. So we should
>> just drop that behavior from seq_search, too, and redefine "max" as
>> having no purpose except to specify how much of the string to show in
>> error messages. There's still a question of what that should be for
>> non-English cases, but at least we now have a clear idea of what we
>> need the value to do.
> Shouldn't we just show all remaining string instead of truncating it?
That would avoid a bunch of arbitrary decisions, for sure.
Anybody have an objection?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-01-23 04:50:19 | Re: Error message inconsistency |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2020-01-23 04:33:33 | Re: Do we need to handle orphaned prepared transactions in the server? |