Re: Strange results from to_timestamp

From: "Mario Weilguni" <mario(dot)weilguni(at)icomedias(dot)com>
To: "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Strange results from to_timestamp
Date: 2006-04-07 13:08:09
Message-ID: FA095C015271B64E99B197937712FD020E4B090F@freedom.grz.icomedias.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

to_timestamp is only for Oracle compatibility? I always thought it's some sort of sql standard. What's the sql compliant way to do this?

Regards,
mario weilguni

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] Im Auftrag von Tom Lane
Gesendet: Freitag, 07. April 2006 06:09
An: Mario Weilguni
Cc: PostgreSQL-development
Betreff: Re: [HACKERS] Strange results from to_timestamp

Mario Weilguni <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com> writes:
> I think all except the first one should raise a warning, isn't it?

to_timestamp (and friends) all seem to me to act pretty bizarre when faced with input that doesn't match the given format string. However, in the end that is an Oracle-compatibility function, and there is only one measure of what it should do: what does Oracle do in the same case.
Can anyone try these examples on a recent Oracle version?

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2006-04-07 13:24:06 Re: GIN - Generalized Inverted iNdex.
Previous Message Teodor Sigaev 2006-04-07 13:05:12 GIN - Generalized Inverted iNdex.