On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 2:40 PM Alexander Korotkov
<a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 7:28 PM amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 5, 2018, 6:35 PM Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 3:10 PM amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 3:05 PM Alexander Korotkov
> >> > <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> >> > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 1:22 AM David G. Johnston
> >> > > <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > From those results the question is how important is it to force the following breakage on our users (i.e.,
introduceFX exact symbol matching):
> >> > > >
> >> > > > SELECT to_timestamp('97/Feb/16', 'FXYY:Mon:DD');
> >> > > > - to_timestamp
> >> > > > -------------------------------
> >> > > > - Sun Feb 16 00:00:00 1997 PST
> >> > > > -(1 row)
> >> > > > -
> >> > > > +ERROR: unexpected character "/", expected character ":"
> >> > > > +HINT: In FX mode, punctuation in the input string must exactly match the format string.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > There seemed to be some implicit approvals of this breakage some 30 emails and 10 months ago but given that
thisis the only change from a correct result to a failure I'd like to officially put it out there for opinion/vote
gathering. Mine is a -1; though keeping the distinction between space and non-alphanumeric characters is expected.
> >> > >
> >> > > Do I understand correctly that you're -1 to changes to FX mode, but no
> >> > > objection to changes in non-FX mode?
> >> > >
> >> > Ditto.
> >>
> >> So, if no objections for non-FX mode changes, then I'll extract that
> >> part and commit it separately.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, that make sense to me, thank you.
>
> OK! I've removed FX changes from the patch. The result is attached.
> I'm going to commit this if no objections.
Attached revision fixes usage of two subsequent spaces in the documentation.
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company