From: | "James Harper" <james(dot)harper(at)bendigoit(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: implicit cast of empty string to timestamp |
Date: | 2006-02-12 02:53:30 |
Message-ID: | AEC6C66638C05B468B556EA548C1A77DAF0814@trantor |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Not my application :(
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: Saturday, 11 February 2006 01:59
> To: James Harper
> Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] implicit cast of empty string to timestamp
>
> "James Harper" <james(dot)harper(at)bendigoit(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > How much trouble am I going to get into by modifying the pg_cast
table
> > to call my function instead?
>
> You can doubtless hack it to work if you slash-and-burn hard enough.
> The question is why don't you fix your buggy application instead ...
>
> regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tim Hart | 2006-02-12 05:33:58 | Seeking comments on schema design and data integrity |
Previous Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2006-02-12 00:44:52 | Re: Each foo must have a bar |