Re: select to_number('1,000', '999,999');

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>
Cc: David Schweikert <dws(at)ee(dot)ethz(dot)ch>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org,Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>
Subject: Re: select to_number('1,000', '999,999');
Date: 2004-11-22 16:08:56
Message-ID: 15875.1101139736@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

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)

Whatever your opinion is about the behavior of the non-FM format, surely
to_char and to_number should be inverses.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ivan 2004-11-22 17:11:01 Re: Data corruption/loss when altering tables (fwd)
Previous Message David Schweikert 2004-11-22 14:25:58 Re: select to_number('1,000', '999,999');