| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Aiello <michael(dot)aiello(at)asg(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, "pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #15091: to_number() returns incorrect value |
| Date: | 2018-03-02 18:41:32 |
| Message-ID: | 6272.1520016092@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Michael Aiello <michael(dot)aiello(at)asg(dot)com> writes:
> Could you let me know whether this issue will be addressed by a bug fix, and if so which version(s) would be targeted and about how long it will take?
[ shrug... ] There is no proposed patch, nor has anyone offered to create
one, so that's an unanswerable question at the moment. If we had a patch
we could evaluate how invasive it is and how big the behavioral change
would be exactly, and then decide whether to back-patch. But my suspicion
is that we would not back-patch, but only change it in the next major
release. This is the sort of thing where somebody might be relying on the
current behavior as "correct" and not be happy if it changes under them in
a minor release.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Gierth | 2018-03-02 20:51:43 | Re: TO_DATE Function unintended behavior when month value is greater than 12 |
| Previous Message | Michael Aiello | 2018-03-02 18:11:28 | RE: BUG #15091: to_number() returns incorrect value |