Re: [HACKERS] wrong behavior using to_char() again

Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > OK, I researched this and realized it should have been obvious to me
> > when I added this code in 2006 that making the thousands separator
> > always "," for a locale of "" was going to cause a problem.
> >
> I tested your patch and IMHO it breaks the glibc behavior. I'm providing
> a SQL script [1] and a diff [2] showing the differences between before
> and after applying it. In [2], I see a lot of common used (pt_*, es_*,
> and fr_*) locales that we'll be changed. Is it the behavior we want to
> support?

Well, what I can say is that the behavior you show for es_* that we were
historically doing is quite wrong, and the corrected output looks
better.

lc_numeric | to_char
------------+------------------------
! es_CL | 123,456,789,01230
(1 registro)

--- 379,397 ----

SET
lc_numeric | to_char
------------+------------------------
! es_CL | 123.456.789,01230
(1 registro)

The first output makes no sense whereas the second is correct (ISTM
we've been doing it wrong for a lot of locales and it has just been
fixed).

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/CTMLCN8V17R4
"No deja de ser humillante para una persona de ingenio saber
que no hay tonto que no le pueda enseñar algo." (Jean B. Say)