MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJTYsWWNfF+hMpbsTDF8NMr+AuqoDfNxR=oHUZm7xqGP+dJ9rA@mail.gmail.com>
 <aenQ37wBgKqZb7a8@paquier.xyz> <FE1D12FF-7E5D-4ED0-A59F-BEA6DEF7EE2C@yesql.se>
 <1444609.1776958814@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CAJTYsWUJFHhqiGD+6vw6m0ELqjajoKev2UutFUMB2uQDjm6+TA@mail.gmail.com>
 <aeqZukF8X29eWtqy@paquier.xyz> <B96867CD-3533-40BA-AE09-43DB2CA5DC48@yesql.se>
 <CAJTYsWV1wEuv2ZbBHt4BQ2O4-Na6JdxSU3b--GFzs-j5cG_pVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJTYsWVEk5vdy8of2DCWzDNJgHUNL0p0Dt6b1zkgmvmNo3ht6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <1B595919-2596-4CB3-BC39-DDCCB9876E56@yesql.se> <ae8O1YKVbykFGcsM@paquier.xyz>
In-Reply-To: <ae8O1YKVbykFGcsM@paquier.xyz>
From: Ayush Tiwari <ayushtiwari.slg01@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2026 16:24:55 +0530
Message-ID: <CAJTYsWXC8VbipX=MJ8e2zdSZ5oKck-MuVX-6qK0cAv6Z3sDm9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: to_date()/to_timestamp() silently accept month=0 and day=0
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002f4abe06506ef238"
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJTYsWXC8VbipX%3DMJ8e2zdSZ5oKck-MuVX-6qK0cAv6Z3sDm9Q%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

--0000000000002f4abe06506ef238
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hi,

On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 at 12:53, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 02:44:04PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > LGTM for the most part, I don't really think we need to use both to_date
> and
> > to_timestamp though, we can save a few cycles there.  I rewrote the
> comments to
> > match the rest of the file, and moved to where to where we test for year
> 0000
> > since it seems like a better place.  Also took the liberty to use year
> 100 in
> > one of the testcase, while the year is superfluous for the test in
> question,
> > year 100 was previously untested so this will increase test coverage for
> free.
>
> That seems fine to me.  If we decide to change this behavior later on
> and error on these pattern, at least we'll know about them.
>

+1.

(Just one tiny nit for whenever this gets committed: in the v2 inline
comment,
"0 -> 1'st" might be slightly cleaner as "0 -> 1st" or "0 -> 1").

Regards,
Ayush

--0000000000002f4abe06506ef238
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">Hi,</div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote gm=
ail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Mon, 27 Apr 2=
026 at 12:53, Michael Paquier &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:michael@paquier.xyz">mi=
chael@paquier.xyz</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote"=
 style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);p=
adding-left:1ex">On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 02:44:04PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsso=
n wrote:<br>
&gt; LGTM for the most part, I don&#39;t really think we need to use both t=
o_date and<br>
&gt; to_timestamp though, we can save a few cycles there.=C2=A0 I rewrote t=
he comments to<br>
&gt; match the rest of the file, and moved to where to where we test for ye=
ar 0000<br>
&gt; since it seems like a better place.=C2=A0 Also took the liberty to use=
 year 100 in<br>
&gt; one of the testcase, while the year is superfluous for the test in que=
stion,<br>
&gt; year 100 was previously untested so this will increase test coverage f=
or free.<br>
<br>
That seems fine to me.=C2=A0 If we decide to change this behavior later on<=
br>
and error on these pattern, at least we&#39;ll know about them.<br></blockq=
uote><div><br>+1.<br><br>(Just one tiny nit for whenever this gets committe=
d: in the v2 inline comment,<br>&quot;0 -&gt; 1&#39;st&quot; might be sligh=
tly cleaner as &quot;0 -&gt; 1st&quot; or &quot;0 -&gt; 1&quot;).<br><br>Re=
gards,<br>Ayush=C2=A0</div></div></div>

--0000000000002f4abe06506ef238--