Re: to_date_valid()

From: Jaime Casanova <jaime(dot)casanova(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum" <adsmail(at)wars-nicht(dot)de>
Subject: Re: to_date_valid()
Date: 2016-07-03 05:05:40
Message-ID: CAJGNTeO75ZPm3qDk9rze7coGyvCZyWm68iEFY3WOYb5w=7OdBg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

El 2/7/2016 20:33, "Euler Taveira" <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br> escribió:
>
> 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.
>

Shouldn't we fix this instead? Sounds like a bug to me. We don't usually
want to be bug compatible so it doesn't matter if we break something.

--
Jaime Casanova http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Borodin 2016-07-03 09:24:58 GiST optimizing memmoves in gistplacetopage for fixed-size updates [PoC]
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2016-07-03 03:47:20 Re: Bug in batch tuplesort memory CLUSTER case (9.6 only)