pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Cc: Alex Ignatov <a.ignatov@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: amul sul <sul_amul@yahoo.co.in>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Bug in to_timestamp().
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:40:55 -0400
Message-ID: <31915.1466703655@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoaWTgbtd2RTwVvySMVoOcHmWq66rCCxtVywOOX3FJy4tQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1873520224.1784572.1465833145330.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
	<1873520224.1784572.1465833145330.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
	<f64563b3-5c3c-6f28-3f73-41b2159417bc@postgrespro.ru>
	<884791796.213185.1466667686999.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
	<20160623133001.GF21246@momjian.us>
	<1877e60a-a970-18b5-453c-e342f96150e6@postgrespro.ru>
	<CAKFQuwZKtS0Ad=a1E9_mkdYwLMq+JA3YjmhCvjJ1JF+3BU8a0g@mail.gmail.com>
	<d469b177-fd4d-5a5b-769e-620957ec1a64@postgrespro.ru>
	<CAKFQuwb2gp8n2ai_agyJod5BTYxL7ek0AjB9zifDSceK6QntnQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+TgmoaWTgbtd2RTwVvySMVoOcHmWq66rCCxtVywOOX3FJy4tQ@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:12 PM, David G. Johnston
> <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
>> My understanding is that is not going to change for 9.6.

> That's exactly what is under discussion here.

I would definitely agree with David on that point.  Making to_timestamp
noticeably better on this score seems like a nontrivial project, and
post-beta is not the time for that sort of thing, even if we had full
consensus on what to do.  I'd suggest somebody work on a patch and put
it up for review in the next cycle.

Now, if you were to narrowly define the problem as "whether to skip
non-spaces for a space in the format", maybe that could be fixed
post-beta, but I think that's a wrongheaded approach.  to_timestamp's
issues with input that doesn't match the format are far wider than that.
IMO we should try to resolve the whole problem with one coherent change,
not make incremental incompatible changes at the margins.

At the very least I'd want to see a thought-through proposal that
addresses all three of these interrelated points:

* what should a space in the format match
* what should a non-space, non-format-code character in the format match
* how should we handle fields that are not exactly the width suggested
by the format

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers



view thread (138+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <31915.1466703655@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../31915.1466703655@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/31915.1466703655@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, robertmhaas@gmail.com, david.g.johnston@gmail.com, a.ignatov@postgrespro.ru, bruce@momjian.us, sul_amul@yahoo.co.in
  Subject: Re: Bug in to_timestamp().
  In-Reply-To: <31915.1466703655@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox