Re: Strange behavior with leap dates and centuries BC

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Strange behavior with leap dates and centuries BC
Date: 2008-03-02 21:36:14
Message-ID: 200803022136.m22LaEl21489@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bernd Helmle wrote:
> --On Montag, Februar 25, 2008 14:04:18 -0500 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> wrote:
>
> > The other issue is whether to throw error for year zero, rather than
> > silently interpreting it as 1 BC. I can't recall whether that behavior
> > was intentional at the time, but given our current rather strict
> > interpretation of date validity checking, it hardly seems like a good
> > idea now. What I suggest is that we throw error in 8.4 and beyond,
> > but not back-patch that change, so as to avoid introducing a behavioral
> > change in minor releases.
>
> That sounds reasonable. I'm still trying to find out how it was managed to
> get such a date into the database, since it seems not to be intended
> behavior by the client. Maybe it's an errorneous to_date() formatting.

Tom has applied a fix for this to CVS HEAD and back branches.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-03-02 23:15:50 Re: Constructing array
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2008-03-02 21:10:12 Constructing array