Monday, 15 August 2016 9:58 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 10:56 AM, amul sul <sul_amul@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>> On Thursday, 11 August 2016 3:18 PM, Artur Zakirov
>> <a.zakirov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
[Skipped..]
>Well, what's the Oracle behavior in any of these cases? I don't think
>we can decide to change any of this behavior without knowing that. If
>a proposed behavior change is incompatible with our previous releases,
>I think it'd better at least be more compatible with Oracle.
>Otherwise, we're just changing from an established behavior that we
>invented ourselves to a new behavior we invented ourselves, which is
>only worthwhile if it's absolutely clear that the new behavior is way
>better.
Following cases works as expected on Oracle (except 3rd one asking input value for &15).
>> SELECT TO_TIMESTAMP('2015-12-31 13:43:36', 'YYYY MM DD HH24 MI SS');
>> SELECT TO_TIMESTAMP('2011$03!18 23_38_15', 'YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS');
>> SELECT TO_TIMESTAMP('2011*03*18 23^38&15', 'YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS');
>> SELECT TO_TIMESTAMP('2011*03!18 #%23^38$15', 'YYYY-MM-DD$$$HH24:MI:SS');
And rest throwing error as shown below:
>> SELECT TO_TIMESTAMP('2016-06-13 99:99:99', 'YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS');
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-01850: hour must be between 0 and 23
>> SELECT TO_TIMESTAMP('2016-02-30 15:43:36', 'YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS');
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-01839: date not valid for month specified
>(Also, note that text formatted email is generally preferred to HTML
>on this mailing list; the fact that your email is in a different font
>than the rest of the thread makes it hard to read.)
Understood. Will try to follow this, thanks.
Regards,
Amul Sul
