On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> Excerpts from Piyush Newe's message of jue mar 17 02:30:06 -0300 2011:
>> Sorry for creating the confusion. The table drawn was PostgreSQL vs EDB
>> Advanced Server.
>> Thanks Burce for clarification.
>> For the 1-digit, 2-digit & 3-digit Year inputs, as I said, I didn't see any
>> document in PG which will explain what would be the century considered if it
>> is not given. If I missed out it somewhere please let me know.
> Keep in mind that the datetime stuff was abandoned by the maintainer
> some years ago with quite some rough edges. Some of it has been fixed,
> but a lot of bugs remain. Looks like this is one of those places and it
> seems appropriate to spend some time fixing it. Since it would involve
> a behavior change, it should only go to 9.2, of course.
I wouldn't object to fixing the problem with # of digits > # of Ys in
9.1, if the fix is simple and clear-cut. I think we are still
accepting patches to make minor tweaks, like the tab-completion patch
I committed yesterday. It also doesn't bother me tremendously if we
push it off, but I don't think that anyone's going to be too sad if
TO_DATE('01-jan-2010', 'DD-MON-YYY') starts returning something more
sensible than 3010-01-01.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-03-17 14:26:30|
|Subject: Re: Rectifying wrong Date outputs |
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-03-17 14:03:43|
|Subject: Re: volatile markings to silence compilers|