On 04/07/16 15:19, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2016-07-04 4:25 GMT+02:00 Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com
<mailto:cr...@2ndquadrant.com>>:
On 3 July 2016 at 09:32, Euler Taveira <eu...@timbira.com.br
<mailto:eu...@timbira.com.br>> wrote:
On 02-07-2016 22 <tel:02-07-2016%2022>:04, Andreas 'ads'
Scherbaum wrote:
> The attached patch adds a new function "to_date_valid()"
which will
> validate the date and return an error if the input and
output date do
> not match. Tests included, documentation update as well.
>
Why don't you add a third parameter (say, validate = true | false)
instead of creating another function? The new parameter could
default to
false to not break compatibility.
because
SELECT to_date('blah', 'pattern', true)
is less clear to read than
SELECT to_date_valid('blah', 'pattern')
and offers no advantage. It's likely faster to use a separate
function too.
personally I prefer first variant - this is same function with
stronger check.
The name to_date_valid sounds little bit strange - maybe
to_date_strict should be better.
Regards
Pavel
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Yeah, my feeling too, is that 'to_date_strict' would be better!
Cheers,
Gavin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
