Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().

Hi, David!

You can notice that:

1) We identified downside of changes in to_timestamp() function and
documented them [1].
2) We found 4 more differences between between patches behavior and
Oracle behavior [2][3].  One of them was assumed to be ridiculous and
wasn't implemented.  So, I think this answers your original concern
that we shouldn't copy Oracle behavior bug to bug.  So, it's depends
on particular case.  For me, if function was introduced for Oracle
compatibility, then it's OK to copy aspects of Oracle behavior that
look reasonable.  But if aspect doesn't look reasonable, then we don't
copy it.

Do you have any feedback on current state of patch?

1. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180723141254.GA10168%40zakirov.localdomain
2. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPpHfdtqOSniGJRvJ2zaaE8%3DeMB8XDnzvVS-9c3Xufaw%3DiPA%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com
3. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPpHfdso_Yvbo-EXKD8t3cuAeR7wszPyuWNBdjQLi1NrMt3O5w%40mail.gmail.com


------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company