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

Re: SQL question

From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, Carolyn Lu Wong <carolyn(at)kss(dot)net(dot)au>, "pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SQL question
Date: 2000-07-17 06:23:22
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-sql
> The immediate cause of this gripe was discussed just a day or so ago
> on one or another of the pgsql lists.  The timestamp-to-date conversion
> routine has this weird idea that it should kick out an error instead
> of returning NULL when presented with a NULL timestamp.  That's a bug
> IMHO, and I've already changed the code in current sources.

That's not a bug, that was a feature, sort of. At least when I coded it,
Postgres *refused* to call any routine with NULL input, assuming that
NULL would be returned. A clever short-circuit, and the elog(ERROR) in
the conversion routine was just a safety net. Because it was also the
case that any routine returning a NULL pointer crashed the backend.

Now that those things aren't true, we are rewriting history to say that
they were bugs all along, eh? ;)

                      - Thomas

In response to


pgsql-sql by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-07-17 06:26:31
Subject: Re: SQL question
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-07-17 05:48:48
Subject: Re: SQL question

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