You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@impala.apache.org by Vincent Tran <vt...@cloudera.com> on 2017/06/02 18:01:11 UTC

IMPALA-5315: Allowing Lazy date/month in timestamp (YYYY-M-D)

The ask in this issue seems kind of specific and contained. But should we
expand to cover lazy year and lazy time as well?

i.e.
90-9-28
or,
90-9-28 1:20:5

Re: IMPALA-5315: Allowing Lazy date/month in timestamp (YYYY-M-D)

Posted by Jim Apple <jb...@cloudera.com>.

I do not think we should. I think the ambiguities this introduces and
then "solves" will make it harder for users to understand what we did
with dates like 35-1-2, or, even worse: 1-2-3 4:5:6

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Vincent Tran <vt...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> The ask in this issue seems kind of specific and contained. But should we
> expand to cover lazy year and lazy time as well?
>
> i.e.
> 90-9-28
> or,
> 90-9-28 1:20:5