On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 7:28 PM amul sul <sula...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2018, 6:35 PM Alexander Korotkov <a.korot...@postgrespro.ru>
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 3:10 PM amul sul <sula...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 3:05 PM Alexander Korotkov
>> > <a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>> > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 1:22 AM David G. Johnston
>> > > <david.g.johns...@gmail.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
0001-to-timestamp-format-checking-v18.patch
Description: Binary data
