Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: BUG #6231: weird to_timestamp behaviour with out of range values

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Henk Enting <h(dot)d(dot)enting(at)mgrid(dot)net>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #6231: weird to_timestamp behaviour with out of range values
Date: 2011-09-29 15:39:28
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZymKzNU9Mxn1Abi=mojUKF_KD3B+_ecSVq39QYxDdXyg@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Henk Enting" <h(dot)d(dot)enting(at)mgrid(dot)net> writes:
>> I would expect the to_timestamp function to return an error when I feed it
>> out of range values, e.g. months > 13 and days > 31. Instead it seems to add
>> the surplus to the timestamp and then return it.
>
> What is your reason for using to_timestamp at all?  The timestamp input
> converter is perfectly capable of dealing with standard formats like
> yyyy-mm-dd, and it does what most people expect in the way of data
> validation checks.

Well, you might want to insist that the input is in some particular
format, rather than just "whatever the input function will accept"...

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Peter GeogheganDate: 2011-09-29 20:26:36
Subject: "no relation entry for relid 1"
Previous:From: Christopher BrowneDate: 2011-09-29 12:26:06
Subject: Re: PostGre compatible to RHEL 6.1

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group