Re: BUG #16419: wrong parsing BC year in to_date() function

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 07:26:55PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 06:10:38PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 5:35 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >>> By that logic, we should never fix any bug in a back branch.
>
> >> No, by that logic, we should not change any behavior in a back-branch
> >> upon which a customer is plausibly relying. No one relies on a certain
> >> query causing a server crash, for example, or a cache lookup failure,
> >> so fixing those things can only help people. But there is no reason at
> >> all why someone shouldn't be relying on this very old and
> >> long-established behavior not to change in a minor release.
>
> > That is an interesting distinction.
>
> I don't want to sound like I'm totally without sympathy for Robert's
> argument. But I do say it's a judgment call, and my judgment remains
> that this patch is appropriate to back-patch.

Agreed. I was just thinking it was an interesting classification that
no one relies on crashes, or query failures.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com

The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee