From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jeremy Ford <jeremford(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #4862: different results in to_date() between 8.3.7 & 8.4.RC1 |
Date: | 2009-06-19 16:03:13 |
Message-ID: | 8188.1245427393@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I hope that answers your question. to_date() is by nature a weird
> beast with many strange corners in its behaviour, and it's hard to
> strike a balance between backwards compatibility and Least
> Astonishment. My personal preference would be for a 100% strict
> interpretation of the format pattern, and a pox on anyone who has been
> relying on sloppy patterns! But that's not very practical. I would
> welcome any suggestions for further refinements.
My feeling about it is that we usually try to match Oracle's behavior
for to_date/to_char, so the $64 question is whether Oracle allows a
leading space in these same cases. Anyone have it handy to test?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rick Levine | 2009-06-19 21:31:50 | BUG #4866: ECPG and BYTEA |
Previous Message | Brendan Jurd | 2009-06-19 15:33:51 | Re: BUG #4862: different results in to_date() between 8.3.7 & 8.4.RC1 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-19 16:12:50 | Re: rc1 tarball contains partially outdated/missing man pages |
Previous Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2009-06-19 15:51:01 | Re: 8.4 open item: copy performance regression? |