Re: to_date_valid()

On 05.07.2016 04:33, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
> <adsmail(at)wars-nicht(dot)de <mailto:adsmail(at)wars-nicht(dot)de>>wrote:
>
> On 04.07.2016 18:37, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>
> I don't know if the name "strict" is best, but the name
> "validate" is
> not good too. Current to_date does some validations too.
>
>
> Obviously not enough, because it allows invalid dates. I'd say that
> the current to_date() merely validates the input format for string
> parsing, and that the date is in range. But there is not much
> validation on the date itself.
>
> So the name can't be "strict" because of the conflict with "NULL"
> handling, and you don't like "valid" - what other options do you offer?
>
>
> ​We don't have to change the name...we could do something like how
> RegularExpressions work - like (?i) - and just add a new modifier ​code.
>
> ​'~YYYY-MI-DD' --that's a leading tilde, could be anything - even
> something like "HMYYYY-MI-DD" for "historical mode"

Where to_timestamp() already uses HH for the hour? If you add another
"H", that surely is confusing.

> It seems that fixing it is back on the table, possibly even for 9.6
> since this is such a hideous bug - one that closely resembles a cockroach ;)

9.6 is already in Beta, people are testing their applications against
it. This would be a huge break, plus an API change - something you don't
add in a Beta.

--
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
German PostgreSQL User Group
European PostgreSQL User Group - Board of Directors
Volunteer Regional Contact, Germany - PostgreSQL Project