From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br> |
Cc: | "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 02:25:55 |
Message-ID: | CAMsr+YHkfZ3KtRwrX+cYOLMXgUzFLTyfNnuNMB7KjOLhi6Mrig@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-07-04 03:02:14 | Re: Parallel appendrel scans? |
Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-07-04 00:21:23 | Re: Docs, backups, and MS VSS |