From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Problem with zero year |
Date: | 2009-03-17 19:24:57 |
Message-ID: | 200903171924.n2HJOvS12684@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > The problem is that the 2-digit year check is for <=2 digits, not
> > exactly two digits:
> > ...
> > This leads to some unexpected outputs:
>
> > test=> select '1-1-0'::date;
> > date
> > ------------
> > 2000-01-01
>
> We've interpreted that like that since 7.4, without complaints; and
> I think it was an intentional change then (since 7.3 doesn't accept it).
> I do not recommend changing it.
OK, the release note text will be:
Reject year '0 BC' and years '000' and '0000' (Tom)
Previously these were interpreted as 1 BC.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Gierth | 2009-03-17 19:47:41 | Re: hstore improvements? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-03-17 18:49:16 | Re: DTrace probes broken in HEAD on Solaris? |