From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
Cc: | David Schweikert <dws(at)ee(dot)ethz(dot)ch>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz> |
Subject: | Re: select to_number('1,000', '999,999'); |
Date: | 2004-11-22 16:08:56 |
Message-ID: | 15875.1101139736@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> No, but I think you're supposed to use FM in such cases.
>
> select to_number(1000, 'FM999,999');
Good point --- I had forgot about FM. In that case there *is* a bug
here, but I'm not sure if it's with to_char or to_number:
regression=# select to_number(to_char(1000, 'FM999,999'),'FM999,999');
to_number
-----------
1000
(1 row)
regression=# select to_number(to_char(1000, '999,999'),'999,999');
to_number
-----------
100
(1 row)
Whatever your opinion is about the behavior of the non-FM format, surely
to_char and to_number should be inverses.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ivan | 2004-11-22 17:11:01 | Re: Data corruption/loss when altering tables (fwd) |
Previous Message | David Schweikert | 2004-11-22 14:25:58 | Re: select to_number('1,000', '999,999'); |