On 04.07.2016 05:51, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2016-07-04 5:19 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
2016-07-04 4:25 GMT+02:00 Craig Ringer <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
On 3 July 2016 at 09:32, Euler Taveira <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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.
Currently probably we have not two similar function - one fault
tolerant and second stricter. There is only one example of similar
behave - parse_ident with "strict" option.
The three parameters are ok still - so I don't see a reason why we have
to implement new function. If you need to emphasize the fact so behave
should be strict, you can use named parameters
select to_date('blah', 'patter', strict => true)
The new function is not "strict", it just adds a validation step:
postgres=# select to_date_valid(NULL, NULL);
to_date_valid
---------------
(1 row)
--
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
German PostgreSQL User Group
European PostgreSQL User Group - Board of Directors
Volunteer Regional Contact, Germany - PostgreSQL Project
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
