Re: to_timestamp function - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: to_timestamp function
Date
Msg-id 10068.1553099600@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to to_timestamp function  (Gustavsson Mikael <mikael.gustavsson@smhi.se>)
Responses SV: to_timestamp function  (Gustavsson Mikael <mikael.gustavsson@smhi.se>)
List pgsql-general
Gustavsson Mikael <mikael.gustavsson@smhi.se> writes:
> So my question is, is it intentional that to_timestamp is stricter than cast to timestamp?

Yes.  The point of using that function at all is to be strict about the
input format, so being strict about the field values seems to make
sense along with that.  An independent argument for it is mentioned in
the commit message (d3cd36a13):

    Historically, something like to_date('2009-06-40','YYYY-MM-DD') would
    return '2009-07-10' because there was no prohibition on out-of-range
    month or day numbers.  This has been widely panned, and it also turns
    out that Oracle throws an error in such cases.  Since these functions
    are nominally Oracle-compatibility features, let's change that.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Gustavsson Mikael
Date:
Subject: to_timestamp function
Next
From: "Zwettler Markus (OIZ)"
Date:
Subject: AW: Postgres Enhancement Request