Re: to_date_valid()

From: Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>
To: Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum <adsmail(at)wars-nicht(dot)de>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(dot)casanova(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: to_date_valid()
Date: 2016-07-04 20:15:50
Message-ID: af97b147-3542-7a55-b651-e0ecae0c8c00@proxel.se
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 07/03/2016 12:36 PM, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
> On 03.07.2016 07:05, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>> Shouldn't we fix this instead? Sounds like a bug to me. We don't usually
>> want to be bug compatible so it doesn't matter if we break something.
>
> There are previous discussions about such a change, and this was rejected:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/lbjf1v%24a2v%241%40ger.gmane.org
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/A737B7A37273E048B164557ADEF4A58B17C9140E%40ntex2010i.host.magwien.gv.at
>
>
> Hence the new function, which does not collide with the existing
> implementation.

I do not see a clear conclusion in the linked threads. For example Bruce
calls it a bug in one of the emails
(https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/201107200103.p6K13ix10517%40momjian.us)

I think we should fix to_date() to throw an error. Personally I would be
happy if my code broke due to this kind of change since the exception
would reveal an old bug which has been there a long time eating my data.
I cannot see a case where I would have wanted the current behavior.

If there is any legitimate use for the current behavior then we can add
it back as another function.

Andreas

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2016-07-04 20:55:29 Re: to_date_valid()
Previous Message Andrew Borodin 2016-07-04 17:59:49 Re: Re: GiST optimizing memmoves in gistplacetopage for fixed-size updates [PoC]