Re: New to_timestamp implementation is pretty strict

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: New to_timestamp implementation is pretty strict
Date: 2008-12-01 15:50:35
Message-ID: 493407CB.5090403@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Stark wrote:
> How would you parse an input format of just 'SS' ? is there something
> ambiguous about '3' ? I don't see anything "bad" about using %d to
> output an integer number of seconds.
>
>

The docs say that SS corresponds to "second (00-59)", so clearly it
should expect a two digit zero padded number.

What's so hard about using "%0.2d" ?

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2008-12-01 16:05:59 Re: New to_timestamp implementation is pretty strict
Previous Message Robert Haas 2008-12-01 15:46:49 Re: New to_timestamp implementation is pretty strict