Re: Bug in date arithmetic

On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 01:18:46PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > ... I'm not sure why it's complaining about field overflow
> > rather than syntax error when the literal is taken as a timestamp,
> > but that's a pretty minor issue.
>
> Oh, of course, it's because we allow this shorthand:
>
> regression=# select '900102'::timestamptz;
> timestamptz
> ------------------------
> 1990-01-02 00:00:00-05
> (1 row)
>
> so '900000'::timestamptz is seen as year (19)90, month 00, day 00,
> and "field out of range" is entirely sensible for that.
>
> Just out of curiosity, what were you *expecting* this to do?
> You obviously weren't expecting the literal to be taken as
> interval, but its contents are not very sane for any other
> likely interpretation.

The gentleman in IRC was the one who was using the construct. I spell
out my date arithmetic. :)

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate