Re: Bug in to_timestamp(). - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From amul sul
Subject Re: Bug in to_timestamp().
Date
Msg-id 2095510729.14135736.1471444528728.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Bug in to_timestamp().  (Artur Zakirov <a.zakirov@postgrespro.ru>)
Responses Re: Bug in to_timestamp().  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 5:15 PM, Artur Zakirov <a.zakirov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>I attached new patch "0001-to-timestamp-format-checking-v2.patch". It
>fixes behaviour for Amul's scenarious:

>
Great.
>
>> Following are few scenarios where we break existing behaviour:
>>
>> 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');
>>
>> But current patch behaviour is not that much bad either at least we have errors, but I am not sure about community
acceptance.
>>
>> I would like to divert communities' attention on following case:
>> SELECT TO_TIMESTAMP('2013--10-01', 'YYYY-MM-DD');
>
>
>For queries above the patch gives an output without any error.
>
>
>> Another is, shouldn’t we have error in following cases?
>> SELECT TO_TIMESTAMP('2016-06-13 99:99:99', 'YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS');
>> SELECT TO_TIMESTAMP('2016-02-30 15:43:36', 'YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS');
>
>
>I attached second patch "0002-to-timestamp-validation-v2.patch". With it
>PostgreSQL perform additional checks for date and time. But as I wrote
>there is another patch in the thread "to_date_valid()" wich differs from
>this patch.

>

Hmm. I haven't really looked into the code, but with applying both patches it looks precisely imitate Oracle's
behaviour.Thanks. 

Regards,
Amul Sul



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Serge Rielau
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres
Next
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: Are these supported??