On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 05:08:17PM +0530, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
> This
> might be a case where throwing an error is actually better than trying
> to make sense of the input.
>
> I don't feel super-strongly about this, but I offer it as a question
> for reflection.
>
>
>
> At the same time I do agree fixing this kind of issue in postgres datetime
> module
> is bit difficult without some assumption. Personally I feel patch do add some
> value but not fully compatible with all kind of year field format.
>
> Bruce,
>
> Do you have any thought/suggestion ?
I think Robert is asking the right question: Is it better to accept
5-digit years, or throw an error? Doing anything new with 6-digit years
is going to break the much more common use of YMD or HMS.
The timestamp data type only supports values to year 294276, so the full
6-digit range isn't even supported. ('DATE' does go higher.)
The entire date/time processing allows imprecise input, so throwing an
error on clear 5-digit years seems wrong. Basically, we have gone down
the road of interpreting date/time input liberally, so throwing an error
on a clear 5-digit year seems odd.
On the other hand, this has never come up before because no one cared
about 5-digit years, so you could argue that 5-digit years require
precise specification, which would favor throwing an error.
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
