On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Excerpts from Piyush Newe's message of jue mar 17 02:30:06 -0300 2011: >> Sorry for creating the confusion. The table drawn was PostgreSQL vs EDB >> Advanced Server. >> Thanks Burce for clarification. >> >> For the 1-digit, 2-digit & 3-digit Year inputs, as I said, I didn't see any >> document in PG which will explain what would be the century considered if it >> is not given. If I missed out it somewhere please let me know. > > Keep in mind that the datetime stuff was abandoned by the maintainer > some years ago with quite some rough edges. Some of it has been fixed, > but a lot of bugs remain. Looks like this is one of those places and it > seems appropriate to spend some time fixing it. Since it would involve > a behavior change, it should only go to 9.2, of course.
I wouldn't object to fixing the problem with # of digits > # of Ys in 9.1, if the fix is simple and clear-cut. I think we are still accepting patches to make minor tweaks, like the tab-completion patch I committed yesterday. It also doesn't bother me tremendously if we push it off, but I don't think that anyone's going to be too sad if TO_DATE('01-jan-2010', 'DD-MON-YYY') starts returning something more sensible than 3010-01-01. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers