On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 09:05:37AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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.
Patch applied to support 5+ digit years in non-ISO timestamp/date
strings, where appropriate.
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
