On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 01:18:46PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > ... I'm not sure why it's complaining about field overflow > > rather than syntax error when the literal is taken as a timestamp, > > but that's a pretty minor issue. > > Oh, of course, it's because we allow this shorthand: > > regression=# select '900102'::timestamptz; > timestamptz > ------------------------ > 1990-01-02 00:00:00-05 > (1 row) > > so '900000'::timestamptz is seen as year (19)90, month 00, day 00, > and "field out of range" is entirely sensible for that. > > Just out of curiosity, what were you *expecting* this to do? > You obviously weren't expecting the literal to be taken as > interval, but its contents are not very sane for any other > likely interpretation.
The gentleman in IRC was the one who was using the construct. I spell out my date arithmetic. :) Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <[email protected]> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: [email protected] Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
