From: | Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, David Schweikert <dws(at)ee(dot)ethz(dot)ch>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: select to_number('1,000', '999,999'); |
Date: | 2004-11-23 08:39:21 |
Message-ID: | 1101199163.6377.55.camel@fixzilla |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 11:08 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> > No, but I think you're supposed to use FM in such cases.
> >
> > select to_number(1000, 'FM999,999');
>
> Good point --- I had forgot about FM. In that case there *is* a bug
> here, but I'm not sure if it's with to_char or to_number:
>
> regression=# select to_number(to_char(1000, 'FM999,999'),'FM999,999');
> to_number
> -----------
> 1000
> (1 row)
>
> regression=# select to_number(to_char(1000, '999,999'),'999,999');
> to_number
> -----------
> 100
> (1 row)
It's to_number() bug. I'm not sure if now (before release) is good time
to fix it. The code of to_number() is not stable for changes and maybe
we can fix this bug add some other new...
I already work on new version for next release. It will use
unit-tests -- I hope it will prevent a lot of bugs like this.
> Whatever your opinion is about the behavior of the non-FM format, surely
> to_char and to_number should be inverses.
Yes.
Karel
--
Karel Zak
http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Devrim GUNDUZ | 2004-11-23 09:02:58 | Re: BUG #1320: 7.3.8 server RPM has file error |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2004-11-23 00:39:03 | Re: Psql history |