| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Adam Brightwell <adam(dot)brightwell(at)crunchydatasolutions(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug fix for missing years in make_date() |
| Date: | 2015-03-31 16:58:27 |
| Message-ID: | 20648.1427821107@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:34:45AM -0400, Adam Brightwell wrote:
>> Previously, zero was rejected, what does it do now? I'm sure it represents
>> 0 AD/CE, however, is that important enough to note given that it was not
>> allowed previously?
> Now, it's supposed to take 0 as 1 BCE, -1 as 2 BCE, etc. There should
> probably be tests for that.
Surely that is *not* what we want? I'd expect any user-facing date
function to reject zero and take -1 as 1 BC, etc. The behavior you
describe is an internal convention, not something we want to expose
to users.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Abhijit Menon-Sen | 2015-03-31 17:13:49 | Re: a fast bloat measurement tool (was Re: Measuring relation free space) |
| Previous Message | Jacobo Vazquez | 2015-03-31 16:40:40 | Fwd: SSPI authentication ASC_REQ_REPLAY_DETECT flag |