Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().

From: Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
To: Artur Zakirov <a(dot)zakirov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alex Ignatov <a(dot)ignatov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, amul sul <sul_amul(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)in>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().
Date: 2018-09-13 18:19:47
Message-ID: CAPpHfduSQO3U2yOqq1SXz3w6t4=ggvVp3xfw21y3xoKLSsHipg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 6:18 PM Arthur Zakirov <a(dot)zakirov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 09, 2018 at 09:52:46PM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > So, pushed! Thanks to every thread participant for review and feedback.
>
> Great! Should we close the commitfest entry? There is FX part of the
> patch though. But it seems that nobody is happy with it. It could be
> done with a separate patch anyway.
>

I've closed commitfest entry. I think we can add new commitfest entry if
required. Regarding FX part, it easy to extract it as separate patch, but
it's hard to find consensus. I think there are at least three possible
decisions.

1) Change FX mode to require separators to be the same.
2) Leave FX mode "as is".
3) Introduce GUC variable controlling behavior of FX mode.

Any thoughts?

------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2018-09-13 18:23:47 Re: stat() on Windows might cause error if target file is larger than 4GB
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-09-13 17:57:45 Re: BUG #15383: Join Filter cost estimation problem in 10.5