From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au>
Cc: Carolyn Lu Wong <carolyn@kss.net.au>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: SQL question
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 06:23:22 +0000
Message-ID: <3972A65A.FBC3E35D@alumni.caltech.edu> (raw)
References: <3.0.5.32.20000717121856.022cd100@mail.rhyme.com.au>
<3.0.5.32.20000717141152.022dd100@mail.rhyme.com.au>
<28464.963812928@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> The immediate cause of this gripe was discussed just a day or so ago
> on one or another of the pgsql lists. The timestamp-to-date conversion
> routine has this weird idea that it should kick out an error instead
> of returning NULL when presented with a NULL timestamp. That's a bug
> IMHO, and I've already changed the code in current sources.
That's not a bug, that was a feature, sort of. At least when I coded it,
Postgres *refused* to call any routine with NULL input, assuming that
NULL would be returned. A clever short-circuit, and the elog(ERROR) in
the conversion routine was just a safety net. Because it was also the
case that any routine returning a NULL pointer crashed the backend.
Now that those things aren't true, we are rewriting history to say that
they were bugs all along, eh? ;)
- Thomas
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-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pjw@rhyme.com.au, carolyn@kss.net.au
Subject: Re: SQL question
In-Reply-To: <3972A65A.FBC3E35D@alumni.caltech.edu>
* 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