Re: PG not rejecting bad dates (was Re: Finding bogus dates) - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Chad Wagner
Subject Re: PG not rejecting bad dates (was Re: Finding bogus dates)
Date
Msg-id 81961ff50701181602x38485537x5c90fdf2125bd1f@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to PG not rejecting bad dates (was Re: Finding bogus dates)  (Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>)
List pgsql-general
On 1/18/07, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:
> Right. In my case I have bad data from a source I didn't control, exported
> via code that I do control which happens to output YYYY-MM-DD. Well, except
> that I don't do what I need to when MM or DD are more than 2 digits, but I'm
> going back to look at that again ;-)

Why didn't the PG engine reject these bad-date records at INSERT
time.  This smacks of something that MySQL would do...

The original poster mentioned that the data type that the "date" was stored in was a varchar, not really much it can do there if don't use the right data type :(.

Not to mention how misleading it probably is to use a varchar for a data to the optimizer for calculating selectivity.

--
Chad
http://www.postgresqlforums.com/

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Steve Atkins
Date:
Subject: Spam from EnterpriseDB?
Next
From: "Jaime Casanova"
Date:
Subject: Re: Spam from EnterpriseDB?