| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, 'Andreas Karlsson *EXTERN*' <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum <adsmail(at)wars-nicht(dot)de>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(dot)casanova(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: to_date_valid() |
| Date: | 2016-07-27 03:00:47 |
| Message-ID: | 579823DF.3080903@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 07/26/2016 06:25 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 7/5/16 4:24 AM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
>> But notwithstanding your feeling that you would like your application
>> to break if it makes use of this behaviour, it is a change that might
>> make some people pretty unhappy - nobody can tell how many.
>
> What is the use of the existing behavior? You get back an arbitrary
> implementation dependent value. We don't even guarantee what the value
> will be. If we changed it to return a different implementation
> dependent value, would users get upset?
No they would not get upset because they wouldn't know.
Can we just do the right thing?
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2016-07-27 03:20:48 | Oddity in EXPLAIN for foreign/custom join pushdown plans |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2016-07-27 03:00:05 | Re: Constraint merge and not valid status |