Re: to_date_valid()

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br>, "Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum" <adsmail(at)wars-nicht(dot)de>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: to_date_valid()
Date: 2016-07-04 03:19:21
Message-ID: CAFj8pRDR7cX7C-vc=_6WWmRau1gd8ZEk3S06Zq6XP7BZt+8c+w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2016-07-04 4:25 GMT+02:00 Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:

> On 3 July 2016 at 09:32, Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br> wrote:
>
>> On 02-07-2016 22:04, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
>> > The attached patch adds a new function "to_date_valid()" which will
>> > validate the date and return an error if the input and output date do
>> > not match. Tests included, documentation update as well.
>> >
>> Why don't you add a third parameter (say, validate = true | false)
>> instead of creating another function? The new parameter could default to
>> false to not break compatibility.
>>
>
> because
>
>
> SELECT to_date('blah', 'pattern', true)
>
> is less clear to read than
>
> SELECT to_date_valid('blah', 'pattern')
>
> and offers no advantage. It's likely faster to use a separate function too.
>

personally I prefer first variant - this is same function with stronger
check.

The name to_date_valid sounds little bit strange - maybe to_date_strict
should be better.

Regards

Pavel

>
> --
> Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gavin Flower 2016-07-04 03:39:22 Re: to_date_valid()
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-07-04 03:02:14 Re: Parallel appendrel scans?