Re: BUG #19651: to_date()/to_timestamp() silently accept out-of-range values for SSSSS, RM, IW and ID format fields

From: Andrey Rachitskiy <pl0h0yp1(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: 303677365(at)qq(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #19651: to_date()/to_timestamp() silently accept out-of-range values for SSSSS, RM, IW and ID format fields
Date: 2026-09-03 15:36:24
Message-ID: CAB8bMivfZh4--bU37WFV-gk2OyWrdNh8p3JWhFwhQgffxP3s_w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

чт, 3 сент. 2026 г. в 18:03, PG Bug reporting form <noreply(at)postgresql(dot)org>:

> The following bug has been logged on the website:
>
> Bug reference: 19651
> Logged by: chunling qin
> Email address: 303677365(at)qq(dot)com
> PostgreSQL version: 18.6
> Operating system: x86_64
> Description:
>
> Four to_date()/to_timestamp() format fields whose documented value ranges
> are narrow accept out-of-range input silently and produce a wrong date,
> while sister fields in the same domain raise errors for the same kind of
> input:
>
> 1. SSSSS (seconds since midnight, documented 0-86399) — negative value
> silently negated:
>
> SELECT to_timestamp('2024-01-01 -1', 'YYYY-MM-DD SSSSS');
> -- 2024-01-01 00:00:01+00 (-1 second becomes +1 second)
> 2. RM (Roman month numeral, documented I..XII) — out-of-range numeral
> accepted:
>
> SELECT to_date('2024 XIII', 'YYYY RM');
> -- 2024-12-01 (XIII parsed as month 12)
> 3. IW (ISO week, documented 01-53) — values 54-99 accepted, silently
> spilling into the following year. The sister field WW validates the same
> value correctly:
>
> SELECT to_date('2024 54', 'IYYY IW');
> -- 2025-01-06 (no error)
> SELECT to_date('2024 99', 'IYYY IW');
> -- 2025-11-17 (no error)
>
> SELECT to_date('2024 54', 'YYYY WW');
> -- ERROR: date/time field value out of range: "2024 54"
> 4. ID (ISO day of week, documented 1-7) — both 0 and 8 accepted, each
> mapped
> to Sunday:
>
> SELECT to_date('2024 01 8', 'IYYY IW ID');
> -- 2024-01-07 (should be an error)
> SELECT to_date('2024 01 0', 'IYYY IW ID');
> -- 2024-01-07 (same Sunday result as 7)
> Expected behavior
> Each field should raise date/time field value out of range for input
> outside
> its documented domain, consistently with how DDD (367+), WW (54+), MM
> (13+),
> DD (32+) and others already behave.
>
>
>
>
> Hi!

This also pertains to the [0] thread; the patch is in there.

[0]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/19650-d7ea430084cdc44a@postgresql.org

--
Regards,
Rachitskiy Andrey

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jacob Champion 2026-09-03 16:49:49 Re: BUG #19647: Difference in pg_basebackup behaviour between PostgreSQL <= 16 and >= 17 with pgactive extension
Previous Message Andrey Rachitskiy 2026-09-03 15:29:28 Re: BUG #19650: to_date()/to_timestamp() silently truncate 4+-digit day-of-year input to the first three digits