| From: | Joseph Koshakow <koshy44(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, jreidthompson(at)nc(dot)rr(dot)com, Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: DecodeInterval fixes |
| Date: | 2023-08-27 20:14:00 |
| Message-ID: | CAAvxfHf1PV1X6VmcrDY7MSZSDVVXQ9FHTEB6wnET+zFSACUHvA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 12:58 PM Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 10:39 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
wrote:
> > 0002 and 0003 make this stuff fail, but isn't there a risk that this
> > breaks applications that relied on these accidental behaviors?
> > Assuming that this is OK makes me nervous.
>
> I wouldn't argue for backpatching, for sure, but I guess I saw this as
> falling into the same vein as 5b3c5953 and bcc704b52 which were
> already committed.
I agree, I don't think we should try and backport this. As Jacob
highlighted, we've merged similar patches for other date time types.
If applications were relying on this behavior, the upgrade may be a
good time for them to re-evaluate their usage since it's outside the
documented spec and they may not be getting the units they're expecting
from intervals like '1 day month'.
Thanks,
Joe Koshakow
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2023-08-27 20:24:59 | Re: BUG #17946: LC_MONETARY & DO LANGUAGE plperl - BUG |
| Previous Message | Pavel Borisov | 2023-08-27 19:55:47 | Re: list of acknowledgments for PG16 |