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 a
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
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Rushabh Lathia
> wrote:
> > Hmm right it has some inconsistency when year length is 6. But the patch
> > is based on assumption that 5-digit number is a year, because YMD and HMS
> > require at least six digits
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Rushabh Lathia
wrote:
> Hmm right it has some inconsistency when year length is 6. But the patch
> is based on assumption that 5-digit number is a year, because YMD and HMS
> require at least six digits. Now Year with 6-digit number its getting
> conflict with
> YM
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 10:19:38AM +, Haribabu kommi wrote:
> >
> > On 03 October 2013 19:30 Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:54:14AM +0530, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
> > >> Thanks Bruce.
> > >>
> > >> Yes for me main pro
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 10:19:38AM +, Haribabu kommi wrote:
>
> On 03 October 2013 19:30 Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:54:14AM +0530, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
> >> Thanks Bruce.
> >>
> >> Yes for me main problem was to make assumption that a 5-digit number
> >> is a year, a
On 03 October 2013 19:30 Bruce Momjian wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:54:14AM +0530, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
>> Thanks Bruce.
>>
>> Yes for me main problem was to make assumption that a 5-digit number
>> is a year, as was bit worried about side effect of that assumption in
>> the date/time mo
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:54:14AM +0530, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
> Thanks Bruce.
>
> Yes for me main problem was to make assumption that a 5-digit number is a
> year,
> as was bit worried about side effect of that assumption in the date/time
> module. I
> did tested patch shared by you with variou
Thanks Bruce.
Yes for me main problem was to make assumption that a 5-digit number is a
year,
as was bit worried about side effect of that assumption in the date/time
module. I
did tested patch shared by you with various test and so far it looks good
to me.
I would like reviewer to review/test th
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:00:30AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 10:42:17AM +, Haribabu kommi wrote:
> >> If the changes are very high to deal all scenarios,
> >>
> >> I feel it is better do it only in scenarios whe
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 10:42:17AM +, Haribabu kommi wrote:
>> If the changes are very high to deal all scenarios,
>>
>> I feel it is better do it only in scenarios where the use cases needs it,
>> until
>> it is not confusing users.
>>
>
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 10:42:17AM +, Haribabu kommi wrote:
> If the changes are very high to deal all scenarios,
>
> I feel it is better do it only in scenarios where the use cases needs it,
> until
> it is not confusing users.
>
> The rest can be documented.
>
> Any other opinions/suggest
On 27 September 2013 15:04 Rushabh Lathia wrote:
>>On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Haribabu kommi
>>mailto:haribabu.ko...@huawei.com>> wrote:
>>I feel changing the year value to accept the length (>4) is not simple.
>>So many places the year length crossing more than length 4 is not considered.
>
Sorry for delay in reply.
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Haribabu kommi
wrote:
> On Tue, 17 September 2013 14:33 Rushabh Lathia wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Haribabu kommi <
> haribabu.ko...@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> *>>>**On *14 August 2013 Rushabh Lathia wrote:
>
On Tue, 17 September 2013 14:33 Rushabh Lathia wrote:
>>On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Haribabu kommi
>>mailto:haribabu.ko...@huawei.com>> wrote:
>>>On 14 August 2013 Rushabh Lathia wrote:
>>>postgres=# create table test ( a timestamptz);
>>>CREATE TABLE
>>>-- Date with year 1000
>>>postgres=#
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Haribabu kommi
wrote:
> *On *14 August 2013 Rushabh Lathia wrote:**
>
> ** **
>
> >postgres=# create table test ( a timestamptz);
>
> >CREATE TABLE
>
> ** **
>
> >-- Date with year 1000
>
> >postgres=# insert into test values ( 'Sat Mar 11 23:58:48 1
On 14 August 2013 Rushabh Lathia wrote:
>postgres=# create table test ( a timestamptz);
>CREATE TABLE
>-- Date with year 1000
>postgres=# insert into test values ( 'Sat Mar 11 23:58:48 1000 IST');
>INSERT 0 1
>-- Now try with year 1 it will return error
>postgres=# insert into test values
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 1:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Rushabh Lathia writes:
> > PFA patch and share your input/suggestions.
>
> I think this needs review. Please add it to the next commitfest.
>
Done.
Here is latest patch with testcase added to regression.
>
> regards,
Rushabh Lathia writes:
> PFA patch and share your input/suggestions.
I think this needs review. Please add it to the next commitfest.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://w
Hi,
While working on something I come across this issue. Consider following
test:
postgres=# select version();
version
-
PostgreSQ
20 matches
Mail list logo
