| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | 正华吕 <kainwen(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Question on cast string to date |
| Date: | 2022-05-10 05:40:58 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwbLsep1xtJ5ESXS1QrtGVwS1z0wFkuFe-SPdqScyLqQfg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Monday, May 9, 2022, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?5q2j5Y2O5ZCV?= <kainwen(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I test the following SQL in pg15dev (seems same behavior as the
> > previous version).
> > select '2020701'::date;
> > date
> > ------------
> > 0202-07-01
> > (1 row)
> > At the first glance, the result seems quite strange.
>
> [ shrug... ] You left out a zero. It's not apparent to me that
> this answer is wrong.
> If you want to pursue this question, you could start by bisecting
> to find just which commit changed it and why.
>
>
Manual history inspection of datetime.c
https://github.com/postgres/postgres/commit/7778ddc7a2d5b006edbfa69cdb44b8d8c24ec1ff
The goal seemed to be able to accept 5-digit years…this behavior change
didn’t show in the tests (or discussion) though I didn’t look for the of
testing the pre-existing failure mode.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | 正华吕 | 2022-05-10 05:47:07 | Re: Question on cast string to date |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-05-10 04:44:43 | Re: Question on cast string to date |