On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kate Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> In other words it is defaulting to the year 0 (actually year 1 BC, since
> >> there is no year 0) instead of 2000.
>
> Hmm, you're right:
>
> regression=# select to_date( '001112', 'YYMMDD');
> to_date
> --
Hi,
I don't know if this is the right place to ask this (and I'm sorry if
this isn't) but here is a little problem I encountered. I have been
using postgres in a redhat linux 6.1 for nearly 6 month and it has been
working fine until today. I have a table with a field called 'id'
(primary key) tha
Martti Hertzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a table with a field called 'id'
> (primary key) that is referenced from other tables. Today I tried to
> delete one of the rows in this table with the following command (worked
> fine a few weeks ago) and there's the output.
> testsqc=> DELETE
Tom and Karel,
Thank you for your responses.
Based on your email, I have worked out a solution.
The reason I am using the to_date function is because I have two data bases into
which I am inserting, one is postgres, the other Oracle. So I need a syntax
solution which will work with both.
Sinc
Karel Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I dunno whether there is any actual spec for to_date(), but I do agree
>> that if you've specified a 2-digit YY format, something 2000-centric
>> would be more useful than the current behavior.
>>
>> It doesn't seem to be doing anything particularly sensib
Hi,
I found an unreachable block during studing the PostgreSQL 7.0.2 by
reading its souce code.
Starting from line 1383 in postgres.c
1383 if (Verbose)
1384 {
1385 if (Verbose)
1386 {
:
1389 }
1390
On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> Karel Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I dunno whether there is any actual spec for to_date(), but I do agree
> >> that if you've specified a 2-digit YY format, something 2000-centric
> >> would be more useful than the current behavior.
> >>
> >> It doe
