Thread: PG handling of date expressions
I encountered a situation wrt date expressions that, although I eventually resolved, has left me with a few unanswered questions regarding how PG handles dates. My error was in not encapsulating a programmically inserted date string within quotation marks. This meant that I was sending off a where clause that looked somewhat like this: WHERE 'date_of_interest' <= 2009-07-18 Now, as the date of interest was, in all but one case, prior to 1970 this appeared to work. However, in one case the date was in 1999 and this was the record that exposed the error. I extrapolated, perhaps incorrectly, from my *nix experience and inferred that the timestamp value 'date_of_interest' used a *nix epoch time value and that the expression 2009-07-18 was resolving to 1984 at the DBMS. If true then this would account for the behaviour observed. However, it occurred to me that using the *nix epoch would be a very odd thing for a DBMS. So, on reconsideration I thought that perhaps the DBMS was using 1984 as the year value for comparison, which would also explain the observed behaviour. My question is: What is actually going on at teh DBMS when one sends a conditional clause comparing a date to a numeric expression such as the one above? -- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrne mailto:ByrneJB@Harte-Lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3
"James B. Byrne" <byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca> writes: > My error was in not encapsulating a programmically inserted date > string within quotation marks. This meant that I was sending off a > where clause that looked somewhat like this: > WHERE 'date_of_interest' <= 2009-07-18 Ah. You are apparently using a pre-8.3 PG release, and you have just stumbled across one of the commoner sorts of errors that prompted us to remove a lot of implicit casts in 8.3. The folks who screamed about us doing that apparently hadn't yet made this type of mistake, or they'd not have groused so much. First off, the interpretation of the righthand side is obvious: it's a numeric expression yielding the value 1984 (2009 minus 7 minus 18). The parser is then faced with an expression date_column <= integer There is no "<=" operator that compares dates and integers. However, there is a "text <= text" operator, and before 8.3 there were implicit casts from date to text and from integer to text. So the parser decided the correct interpretation of your command was date_column::text <= '1984'::text which indeed matches your description of how it acted. It would have behaved very strangely indeed if you'd been using a non-ISO datestyle, though ... 8.3 and up will throw an error on such cases: regression=# select current_date <= 2009-07-18; ERROR: operator does not exist: date <= integer LINE 1: select current_date <= 2009-07-18; ^ HINT: No operator matches the given name and argument type(s). You might need to add explicit type casts. regards, tom lane
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 01:20:27PM -0400, James B. Byrne wrote: > I was sending off a where clause that looked somewhat like this: > > WHERE 'date_of_interest' <= 2009-07-18 > > Now, as the date of interest was, in all but one case, prior to 1970 > this appeared to work. However, in one case the date was in 1999 > and this was the record that exposed the error. I extrapolated, > perhaps incorrectly, from my *nix experience and inferred that the > timestamp value 'date_of_interest' used a *nix epoch time value and > that the expression 2009-07-18 was resolving to 1984 at the DBMS. > If true then this would account for the behaviour observed. I assume you're not using PG 8.3 or later? This would catch this sort of mistake and complain that you're trying to compare an integer and a date. The reason you're getting 1984 is because the numeric expression (2009 - 7 - 18) equals 1984. PG would then (silently) coerce both sides of the comparison to a common type (i.e. text) and then end up doing a lexicographical comparison on the two. This is the reason that PG started complaining about doing this silent casting and forcing users to explicitly say that this is what they want. -- Sam http://samason.me.uk/