Re: to_date()/to_timestamp() silently accept month=0 and day=0

Hi,

On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 at 12:53, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 02:44:04PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > LGTM for the most part, I don't really think we need to use both to_date
> and
> > to_timestamp though, we can save a few cycles there. I rewrote the
> comments to
> > match the rest of the file, and moved to where to where we test for year
> 0000
> > since it seems like a better place. Also took the liberty to use year
> 100 in
> > one of the testcase, while the year is superfluous for the test in
> question,
> > year 100 was previously untested so this will increase test coverage for
> free.
>
> That seems fine to me. If we decide to change this behavior later on
> and error on these pattern, at least we'll know about them.
>

+1.

(Just one tiny nit for whenever this gets committed: in the v2 inline
comment,
"0 -> 1'st" might be slightly cleaner as "0 -> 1st" or "0 -> 1").

Regards,
Ayush