Re: select to_number('1,000', '999,999');
От | Karel Zak |
---|---|
Тема | Re: select to_number('1,000', '999,999'); |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1101199163.6377.55.camel@fixzilla обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: select to_number('1,000', '999,999'); (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: select to_number('1,000', '999,999');
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 11:08 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com> writes: > > No, but I think you're supposed to use FM in such cases. > > > > select to_number(1000, 'FM999,999'); > > Good point --- I had forgot about FM. In that case there *is* a bug > here, but I'm not sure if it's with to_char or to_number: > > regression=# select to_number(to_char(1000, 'FM999,999'),'FM999,999'); > to_number > ----------- > 1000 > (1 row) > > regression=# select to_number(to_char(1000, '999,999'),'999,999'); > to_number > ----------- > 100 > (1 row) It's to_number() bug. I'm not sure if now (before release) is good time to fix it. The code of to_number() is not stable for changes and maybe we can fix this bug add some other new... I already work on new version for next release. It will use unit-tests -- I hope it will prevent a lot of bugs like this. > Whatever your opinion is about the behavior of the non-FM format, surely > to_char and to_number should be inverses. Yes. Karel -- Karel Zak http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: