| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alex Ignatov <a(dot)ignatov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, amul sul <sul_amul(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)in>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug in to_timestamp(). |
| Date: | 2016-06-23 17:12:28 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwb2gp8n2ai_agyJod5BTYxL7ek0AjB9zifDSceK6QntnQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thursday, June 23, 2016, Alex Ignatov <a(dot)ignatov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> Arguing just like that one can say that we don't even need exception like
> "division by zero". Just use well-formed numbers in denominator...
> Input data sometimes can be generated automagically. Without exception
> throwing debugging stored function containing to_timestamp can be painful.
>
to_timestamp with its present behavior is, IMO, a poorly designed function
that would never be accepted today. Concrete proposals for either fixing
or deprecating (or both) are welcome. Fixing it should not
cause unnecessary errors to be raised.
My main point is that I'm inclined to deprecate it.
My second point is if you are going to use this badly designed function you
need to protect yourself.
My understanding is that is not going to change for 9.6.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-06-23 17:16:03 | Re: Bug in to_timestamp(). |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-06-23 17:12:18 | Re: Rethinking representation of partial-aggregate steps |