On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> OK, what is the TODO? It is more than AM/PM, right?
I see it happening in two stages.
Stage 1 is updating the AM/PM parse code to use the seq_search
technique, which may involve some minor refactoring around seq_search
itself. This will get us the relaxed validation rules I was talking
about before (i.e., "am" is an acceptable spelling for "AM" and vice
Stage 2 is improving the error message reporting for all the bits that
So I would probably make two TODOs, descriptions could be like:
* Relax validation for AM/PM markers in to_timestamp() by using seq_search
* Make to_timestamp() error messages more specific, and display the
actual value which caused the error.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-01-08 03:38:51|
|Subject: Re: Null row vs. row of nulls in plpgsql |
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2009-01-08 03:30:55|
|Subject: Re: Common Table Expressions applied; some issues