Re: to_date_valid()

From: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
To: Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum <adsmail(at)wars-nicht(dot)de>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, 'Andreas Karlsson *EXTERN*' <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jaime Casanova <jaime(dot)casanova(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: to_date_valid()
Date: 2016-07-29 20:12:30
Message-ID: 0f2cb7b2-1e63-3200-d89d-4e1a263488fd@BlueTreble.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 7/29/16 1:33 PM, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
> On 27.07.2016 05:00, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> On 07/26/2016 06:25 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> On 7/5/16 4:24 AM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
>>>> But notwithstanding your feeling that you would like your application
>>>> to break if it makes use of this behaviour, it is a change that might
>>>> make some people pretty unhappy - nobody can tell how many.
>>>
>>> What is the use of the existing behavior? You get back an arbitrary
>>> implementation dependent value. We don't even guarantee what the value
>>> will be. If we changed it to return a different implementation
>>> dependent value, would users get upset?
>>
>> No they would not get upset because they wouldn't know.
>>
>> Can we just do the right thing?
>
> I'm in favour of fixing this, and update the documentation.

+1. I'd say that if users complain we can always create an extension (on
PGXN) that offers the old behavior. Users could even put that function
before pg_catalog in search_path and get the old behavior back.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532) mobile: 512-569-9461

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2016-07-29 20:47:35 Re: pg_dumping extensions having sequences with 9.6beta3
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2016-07-29 20:08:00 Re: Design for In-Core Logical Replication