Re: BUG #4862: different results in to_date() between 8.3.7 & 8.4.RC1

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jeremy Ford <jeremford(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #4862: different results in to_date() between 8.3.7 & 8.4.RC1
Date: 2009-06-19 16:03:13
Message-ID: 8188.1245427393@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I hope that answers your question. to_date() is by nature a weird
> beast with many strange corners in its behaviour, and it's hard to
> strike a balance between backwards compatibility and Least
> Astonishment. My personal preference would be for a 100% strict
> interpretation of the format pattern, and a pox on anyone who has been
> relying on sloppy patterns! But that's not very practical. I would
> welcome any suggestions for further refinements.

My feeling about it is that we usually try to match Oracle's behavior
for to_date/to_char, so the $64 question is whether Oracle allows a
leading space in these same cases. Anyone have it handy to test?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rick Levine 2009-06-19 21:31:50 BUG #4866: ECPG and BYTEA
Previous Message Brendan Jurd 2009-06-19 15:33:51 Re: BUG #4862: different results in to_date() between 8.3.7 & 8.4.RC1

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-06-19 16:12:50 Re: rc1 tarball contains partially outdated/missing man pages
Previous Message Stefan Kaltenbrunner 2009-06-19 15:51:01 Re: 8.4 open item: copy performance regression?