From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br>, "Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum" <adsmail(at)wars-nicht(dot)de>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: to_date_valid() |
Date: | 2016-07-04 03:19:21 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRDR7cX7C-vc=_6WWmRau1gd8ZEk3S06Zq6XP7BZt+8c+w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2016-07-04 4:25 GMT+02:00 Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:
> On 3 July 2016 at 09:32, Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br> wrote:
>
>> On 02-07-2016 22:04, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
>> > The attached patch adds a new function "to_date_valid()" which will
>> > validate the date and return an error if the input and output date do
>> > not match. Tests included, documentation update as well.
>> >
>> Why don't you add a third parameter (say, validate = true | false)
>> instead of creating another function? The new parameter could default to
>> false to not break compatibility.
>>
>
> because
>
>
> SELECT to_date('blah', 'pattern', true)
>
> is less clear to read than
>
> SELECT to_date_valid('blah', 'pattern')
>
> and offers no advantage. It's likely faster to use a separate function too.
>
personally I prefer first variant - this is same function with stronger
check.
The name to_date_valid sounds little bit strange - maybe to_date_strict
should be better.
Regards
Pavel
>
> --
> Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gavin Flower | 2016-07-04 03:39:22 | Re: to_date_valid() |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-07-04 03:02:14 | Re: Parallel appendrel scans? |