Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: timestamptz parsing bug?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: timestamptz parsing bug?
Date: 2011-08-29 20:29:39
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 08/29/2011 03:35 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
>> On Aug 29, 2011, at 12:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Do we actually *want* to support this?  The "T" is supposed to mean that
>>> the string is strictly ISO-conformant, no?

> In that case we shouldn't be accepting an abbreviation either.

Yeah, that would be the logical conclusion.  OTOH you could argue that
we don't want to remove the abbreviation case for backward-compatibility
reasons, in which case allowing full names as well is a reasonable
thing.  I don't know the answer, I'm just asking the question.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dean RasheedDate: 2011-08-29 20:31:00
Subject: Re: timestamptz parsing bug?
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2011-08-29 19:43:57
Subject: Re: timestamptz parsing bug?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group