Bernd Helmle wrote: > --On Montag, Februar 25, 2008 14:04:18 -0500 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > The other issue is whether to throw error for year zero, rather than > > silently interpreting it as 1 BC. I can't recall whether that behavior > > was intentional at the time, but given our current rather strict > > interpretation of date validity checking, it hardly seems like a good > > idea now. What I suggest is that we throw error in 8.4 and beyond, > > but not back-patch that change, so as to avoid introducing a behavioral > > change in minor releases. > > That sounds reasonable. I'm still trying to find out how it was managed to > get such a date into the database, since it seems not to be intended > behavior by the client. Maybe it's an errorneous to_date() formatting.
Tom has applied a fix for this to CVS HEAD and back branches. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://mail.postgresql.org/mj/mj_wwwusr?domain=postgresql.org&extra=pgsql-hackers
