Re: to_date_valid()

On 05.07.2016 06:05, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>
> 2016-07-05 2:39 GMT+02:00 Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum <adsmail(at)wars-nicht(dot)de
> <mailto:adsmail(at)wars-nicht(dot)de>>:
>
> On 04.07.2016 18:37, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>
> I don't know if the name "strict" is best, but the name
> "validate" is
> not good too. Current to_date does some validations too.
>
>
> Obviously not enough, because it allows invalid dates. I'd say that
> the current to_date() merely validates the input format for string
> parsing, and that the date is in range. But there is not much
> validation on the date itself.
>
> So the name can't be "strict" because of the conflict with "NULL"
> handling, and you don't like "valid" - what other options do you offer?
>
>
> I have not - so third option looks best for me - it can be long name
> "only_correct_date", "only_valid_date", "only_valid_date_on_input" ...

Then you don't have "to_date" in the function name, but still use
"valid" in the name. How is that useful to remember the function? Where
"to_date_valid" already gives you the idea that it is "to_date" with an
additional "valid"ator.

Don't make it overly complicated.

--
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
German PostgreSQL User Group
European PostgreSQL User Group - Board of Directors
Volunteer Regional Contact, Germany - PostgreSQL Project