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 So at least this is not by accident. On the other hand, I have always thought that these functions are for Oracle compatibility, and sqlplus says: Connected to: Oracle Database 12c Enterprise Edition Release 12.1.0.1.0 - 64bit Production SQL> SELECT to_date('20096040','YYYYMMDD') FROM dual; SELECT to_date('20096040','YYYYMMDD') FROM dual * ERROR at line 1: ORA-01843: not a valid month I don't know if that should be fixed, but fixing it might break SQL that deliberately uses the current behaviour. Yours, Laurenz Albe -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
