Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().

On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 7:28 PM amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2018, 6:35 PM Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 3:10 PM amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 3:05 PM Alexander Korotkov
>> > <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
>> > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 1:22 AM David G. Johnston
>> > > <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> > > > From those results the question is how important is it to force the following breakage on our users (i.e., introduce FX exact symbol matching):
>> > > >
>> > > > SELECT to_timestamp('97/Feb/16', 'FXYY:Mon:DD');
>> > > > - to_timestamp
>> > > > -------------------------------
>> > > > - Sun Feb 16 00:00:00 1997 PST
>> > > > -(1 row)
>> > > > -
>> > > > +ERROR: unexpected character "/", expected character ":"
>> > > > +HINT: In FX mode, punctuation in the input string must exactly match the format string.
>> > > >
>> > > > There seemed to be some implicit approvals of this breakage some 30 emails and 10 months ago but given that this is the only change from a correct result to a failure I'd like to officially put it out there for opinion/vote gathering. Mine is a -1; though keeping the distinction between space and non-alphanumeric characters is expected.
>> > >
>> > > Do I understand correctly that you're -1 to changes to FX mode, but no
>> > > objection to changes in non-FX mode?
>> > >
>> > Ditto.
>>
>> So, if no objections for non-FX mode changes, then I'll extract that
>> part and commit it separately.
>
>
> Yeah, that make sense to me, thank you.

OK! I've removed FX changes from the patch. The result is attached.
I'm going to commit this if no objections.

------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company