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 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2011-09-29 20:26:36 | "no relation entry for relid 1" |
Previous Message | Christopher Browne | 2011-09-29 12:26:06 | Re: PostGre compatible to RHEL 6.1 |