* Henk Enting (h.d.ent...@mgrid.net) wrote:
> But still, I think the to_timestamp should throw an error if I put in
> something like '21-21-2011'.
I agree completely, this is a pretty big bug in my opinion. We don't
accept invalid or garbage timestamps in the input function, I don't see
any reaso
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Henk Enting" 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
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Henk Enting" 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 y
"Henk Enting" 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 in
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 6231
Logged by: Henk Enting
Email address: h.d.ent...@mgrid.net
PostgreSQL version: 9.1.1
Operating system: linux x86_64
Description:weird to_timestamp behaviour with out of range values
Details:
I would expec
