On 03.07.2016 07:05, Jaime Casanova wrote:
El 2/7/2016 20:33, "Euler Taveira" <eu...@timbira.com.br
<mailto:eu...@timbira.com.br>> escribió:
>
> On 02-07-2016 22:04, 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.
>
Shouldn't we fix this instead? Sounds like a bug to me. We don't usually
want to be bug compatible so it doesn't matter if we break something.
There are previous discussions about such a change, and this was rejected:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/lbjf1v%24a2v%241%40ger.gmane.org
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/A737B7A37273E048B164557ADEF4A58B17C9140E%40ntex2010i.host.magwien.gv.at
Hence the new function, which does not collide with the existing
implementation.
Regards,
--
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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
