On 11/05/2013 05:29 AM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
Thomas Kellerer wrote:
bsreejithin, 05.11.2013 13:14:
Not able to post the attached details as a comment in the reply box, so
attaching it as an image file :
<http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/file/n5776987/Untitled.png>
It would have much easier if you had simply used copy & paste to post a text
version of that SQL.
Does your mail client not allow you to do that?
But your test case is essentially this:
select to_date('33-OCT-2013', 'dd-mon-yyyy')
which indeed returns 2013-11-02 (using 9.3.1)
I don't know if this is inteded or actually a bug - I can't find anything in
the docs relating to that
behaviour.
There is a comment in utils/adt/formatting.c:
* This function does very little error checking, e.g.
* to_timestamp('20096040','YYYYMMDD') works
I think the place for such warnings in addition to the source-code is in
the documentation. This or similar issues with to_date have popped up on
the lists a number of times.
Perhaps a "see warnings below" by the to_date description in table:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/functions-formatting.html#FUNCTIONS-FORMATTING-TABLE
Then under usage notes something like:
The to_date and to_timestamp functions do minimal input error-checking
and are intended for conversion of non-standard formats that cannot be
handled by casting. These functions will attempt to convert illegal
dates to the best of their ability, e.g. to_date('33-OCT-2013',
'dd-mon-yyyy') will return 2013-11-02. Users of these functions are
advised to perform whatever external error-checking they deem prudent.
Cheers,
Steve
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
