Yes, there isn't a use case for a month value outside 1-12, i found this
due a typo.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Dhaval
> > Jaiswal<dhaval(dot)jaiswal(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> >> postgres=# select to_timestamp('20096010','YYYYMMDD');
> >> ---------------------------
> >> 2013-12-18 00:00:00+05:30
> > I suspect you'll find that the 60th month after the start of 2009 is
> > in fact december 2013.
> Yeah. I was kind of surprised that CVS HEAD doesn't complain about this
> --- I thought we'd tightened up the error checking in to_timestamp.
> I think it's been occasionally seen as a feature that something like
> '2009-02-29' will be read as '2009-03-01', but it's hard to imagine a
> real use case for month outside 1-12.
> regards, tom lane
Thanks & Regards,
Contact: 732-331-1300 Ext- 2022
+91-20-30589 516 / 494
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Simon Bertrang||Date: 2009-06-10 15:07:18|
|Subject: Re: patch to fix configure(.in) on openbsd wrt/ krb5/com_err andreadline linking|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-06-10 14:42:02|
|Subject: Re: to_timestamp error handling. |