Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 8:21 AM, Piyush Newe
> >> <piyush.n...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> >> > Data Format ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?PostgreSQL EDBAS
> >> > TO_DATE('01-jan-10', ?'DD-MON-Y') ?? ? ? ?2010-01-01 Error
> >> > TO_DATE('01-jan-10', ?'DD-MON-YY') ?? ? ? ?2010-01-01 01-JAN-2010
> >> > TO_DATE('01-jan-10', ?'DD-MON-YYY') 2010-01-01 01-JAN-2010
> >> > TO_DATE('01-jan-10', ?'DD-MON-YYYY') 0010-01-01 01-JAN-0010
> >> > In this case, it seems in last 3 cases PG is behaving correctly. Whereas
> >> > in
> >> > 1st case the output is not correct since the Format ('Y') is lesser than
> >> > the
> >> > actual input ('10'). But PG is ignoring this condition and throwing
> >> > whatever
> >> > is input. The output year is might not be the year, what user is
> >> > expecting.
> >> > Hence PG should throw an error.
> >>
> >> I can't get worked up about this. ?If there's a consensus that
> >> throwing an error here is better, fine, but on first blush the PG
> >> behavior doesn't look unreasonable to me.
> >>
> >> > Data Format ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?PostgreSQL EDBAS
> >
> > To clarify, the user is reporting EDB Advanced Server, though the
> > community PG has the same issues, or at least similar; ?with git HEAD:
> >
> > ? ? ? ?test=> SELECT TO_DATE('01-jan-2010', ?'DD-MON-YY');
> > ? ? ? ? ?to_date
> > ? ? ? ?------------
> > ? ? ? ? 3910-01-01
> > ? ? ? ?(1 row)
>
> Actually, I think he's comparing PostgreSQL to Advanced Server.
Oh, I understand now. I was confused that the headings didn't line up
with the values. I see now the first value is community PG and the
second is EDBAS.
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
