Re: Rectifying wrong Date outputs

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Piyush Newe <piyush(dot)newe(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Rectifying wrong Date outputs
Date: 2011-03-21 14:18:50
Message-ID: 20815.1300717130@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> What I was thinking was that YYYY would take either 2 or 4 digits.
>> Whatever you do here, the year will have to be delimited by a non-digit
>> for such cases to be parseable.

> I was assuming a slightly more general variant of that - namely, Y,
> YY, or YYY would all accept that many digits, or more; and the result
> of Y with 2, 3, or 4 digits would be the same as if YY, YYY, or YYYY,
> respectively, had been used.

As far as I can see, that would completely destroy the use-case of
trying to parse a string where there's not non-digit delimiters and
so you have to take exactly the specified number of digits, not more.

Why not head in the other direction of allowing fewer digits than
suggested by the format, instead of more?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-03-21 14:25:29 Re: Planner regression in 9.1: min(x) cannot use partial index with NOT NULL
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-03-21 14:02:17 Re: Rectifying wrong Date outputs