Re: BUG #6231: weird to_timestamp behaviour with out of range values - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Henk Enting
Subject Re: BUG #6231: weird to_timestamp behaviour with out of range values
Date
Msg-id CAAGvj=Dk0saKZtsaa3sjbk-u_w-ocOYpEUzZhFPW3bpVZAyHfg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: BUG #6231: weird to_timestamp behaviour with out of range values  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: BUG #6231: weird to_timestamp behaviour with out of range values  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-bugs
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > "Henk Enting" <h.d.enting@mgrid.net> writes:
> >> I would expect the to_timestamp function to return an error when I feed
> it
> >> out of range values, e.g. months > 13 and days > 31. Instead it seems to
> add
> >> the surplus to the timestamp and then return it.
> >
> > What is your reason for using to_timestamp at all?  The timestamp input
> > converter is perfectly capable of dealing with standard formats like
> > yyyy-mm-dd, and it does what most people expect in the way of data
> > validation checks.
>
> Well, you might want to insist that the input is in some particular
> format, rather than just "whatever the input function will accept"...
>
Exactly. But I probably can rely on the input function and set the datastyle
parameter to make sure I get the right dates (e.g. in our case 07-04-2011is
in april, not in july).
But still, I think the to_timestamp should throw an error if I put in
something like '21-21-2011'.

Best Regards,

Henk Enting

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #6234: Memory leak from PQexec
Next
From: Yaamini Bist
Date:
Subject: FW: PostGre compatible to RHEL 6.1