I wrote:
> ... I'm not sure why it's complaining about field overflow
> rather than syntax error when the literal is taken as a timestamp,
> but that's a pretty minor issue.
Oh, of course, it's because we allow this shorthand:
regression=# select '900102'::timestamptz; timestamptz
------------------------1990-01-02 00:00:00-05
(1 row)
so '900000'::timestamptz is seen as year (19)90, month 00, day 00,
and "field out of range" is entirely sensible for that.
Just out of curiosity, what were you *expecting* this to do?
You obviously weren't expecting the literal to be taken as
interval, but its contents are not very sane for any other
likely interpretation.
regards, tom lane
