From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>
cc: Artur Zakirov <a.zakirov@postgrespro.ru>, amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com>,
        "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>,
        Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>,
        Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
        Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>,
        Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>,
        Alex Ignatov <a.ignatov@postgrespro.ru>,
        Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, amul sul <sul_amul@yahoo.co.in>,
        pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().
In-reply-to: 
 <CAPpHfduSQO3U2yOqq1SXz3w6t4=ggvVp3xfw21y3xoKLSsHipg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAKFQuwY5KOaYufbhmyquij2QBF=wZTPaNB_BY_FavMnUm+9RRA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPpHfdvP49XweKOnsVf9RPsCjuXkCcm7pxQsRUs9SqxZ6vWydQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKFQuwaavBMaegu=W=mKC1gZaYoWKwzT7hRfTQ8mqmXWYQBrGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPpHfdtff6xns_dQBhDOrSHOno873PgCDheqj+DE+fj7B78H0A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAJ_b975xLGtR5Mr3guPov9xdTtNPE3amE5km+=q22czAUAi+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPpHfdu3zSBCCyypWV4tdggfzQ8D8ieU6myETKQEQ7J670b=+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAJ_b95ZO=2rLoN3qGKekDWfDH6gAyJonQjE7EbNkBjcum=WTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPpHfdsNJBXNGf2cOk_G7wVMkUsWhu85ibf42U2savS8OCy3HA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPpHfdsUiWA8sSiyt20Jj_TubsN7JT3X+n2fZy3tU25iYq_OZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPpHfdtBJsfmb_Cwghf+JH0xLrU9TF9bYk+NPXJNuAFVBDjjxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180911151829.GA29967@zakirov.localdomain>
 <CAPpHfduSQO3U2yOqq1SXz3w6t4=ggvVp3xfw21y3xoKLSsHipg@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>
	message dated "Thu, 13 Sep 2018 21:19:47 +0300"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <14500.1536863647.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 14:34:07 -0400
Message-ID: <14501.1536863647@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> writes:
> I've closed commitfest entry.  I think we can add new commitfest entry if
> required.  Regarding FX part, it easy to extract it as separate patch, but
> it's hard to find consensus.  I think there are at least three possible
> decisions.

> 1) Change FX mode to require separators to be the same.
> 2) Leave FX mode "as is".
> 3) Introduce GUC variable controlling behavior of FX mode.

> Any thoughts?

A GUC variable is a horrid solution.  Years ago we thought it'd be OK
to have GUCs that change query behavior, but we've regretted it every
time we did that, and often removed them again later (e.g. regex_flavor,
sql_inheritance).  Applications that want to be portable have to contend
with all possible values of the GUC, and that's no fun for anybody.

Given the lack of consensus, it's hard to make a case for breaking
backwards compatibility, so I'd have to vote for option 2.

			regards, tom lane