Re: BUG #4862: different results in to_date() between 8.3.7 & 8.4.RC1

Oracle 9i:

YEAR MONTH METHOD1 METHOD2

2009 03 1/03/2009 1/03/2009

Oracle 10g:

YEAR MONTH METHOD1 METHOD2

2009 03 1/03/2009 1/03/2009

Regards,
Jeremy.

On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 2:03 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> 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
>