Hi All,
Few more findings on to_timestamp() test with HEAD.
postgres[3493]=# select to_timestamp('15-07-1984 23:30:32',' dd- mm- yyyy
hh24: mi: ss');
to_timestamp
---------------------------
1984-07-15 23:30:32+05:30
(1 row)
postgres[3493]=# select to_timestamp('15-07-*1984* 23:30:32','*9*dd-*9*mm-
*99*yyyy *9*hh24:*9*mi:*9*ss');
to_timestamp
------------------------------
*0084*-07-05 03:00:02+05:53:28
(1 row)
If there are spaces before any formate then output is fine(1st output) but
instead of spaces if we have *digit* then we are getting wrong output.
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 12:23 AM Alexander Korotkov <
a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 3:58 PM Alexander Korotkov <
> a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 2:40 PM Alexander Korotkov
>> <a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> Attached revision fixes usage of two subsequent spaces in the
>> documentation.
>>
>
> So, pushed! Thanks to every thread participant for review and feedback.
>
> ------
> Alexander Korotkov
> Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
> The Russian Postgres Company
>
--
With Regards,
Prabhat Kumar Sahu
Skype ID: prabhat.sahu1984
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company
