Re: insert throw error when year field len > 4 for timestamptz datatype

Thanks Bruce.

Yes for me main problem was to make assumption that a 5-digit number is a
year,
as was bit worried about side effect of that assumption in the date/time
module. I
did tested patch shared by you with various test and so far it looks good
to me.

I would like reviewer to review/test the patch and share his comments.

Attaching the git patch again with this mail.

Assigning to Reviewer.

Regards,
Rushabh

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:00:30AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 10:42:17AM +0000, Haribabu kommi wrote:
> > >> If the changes are very high to deal all scenarios,
> > >>
> > >> I feel it is better do it only in scenarios where the use cases needs
> it, until
> > >> it is not confusing users.
> > >>
> > >> The rest can be documented.
> > >>
> > >> Any other opinions/suggestions welcome.
> > >
> > > I have reviewed this patch and it is good. The problem is guessing if
> a
> > > number with 5+ digits is YMD, HMS, or a year. I have created a
> modified
> > > patch, attached, assumes a 5-digit number is a year, because YMD and
> HMS
> > > require at least six digits, and used your date/time test to control
> the
> > > other cases. I also added a few more regression tests.
> >
> > In an ideal world the interpretation of the tokens wouldn't depend on
> > the order in which they appear. But we don't live in an ideal world,
> > so maybe this is fine.
>
> Yes, earlier in the thread the original patch poster questioned whether
> he was going in the right direction, given the unusual hacks needed, but
> such hacks are standard operating procedure for date/time stuff.
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
> EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
>
> + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
>

--
Rushabh Lathia