Re: New to_timestamp implementation is pretty strict

From: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Greg Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "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 16:05:59
Message-ID: 603c8f070812010805y1e390982nab6fdafdd918f776@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Another point here is that we have always accepted single digits in dates:

portal=> select '2008-11-1'::date;
date
------------
2008-11-01
(1 row)

portal=> select '2008-1-11'::date;
date
------------
2008-01-11
(1 row)

If we're going to handle dates and timestamps inconsistently, there
should be a good reason for it.

...Robert

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hitoshi Harada 2008-12-01 16:13:16 Re: Windowing Function Patch Review -> Standard Conformance
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2008-12-01 15:50:35 Re: New to_timestamp implementation is pretty strict