Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 14:35:28 +0000 (UTC)
From: amul sul <sul_amul@yahoo.co.in>
Reply-To: amul sul <sul_amul@yahoo.co.in>
To: Artur Zakirov <a.zakirov@postgrespro.ru>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>,
	Alex Ignatov <a.ignatov@postgrespro.ru>,
	Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Message-ID: <2095510729.14135736.1471444528728.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <60cc3122-0950-e455-21fe-de89882e285d@postgrespro.ru>
References: 
 <1873520224.1784572.1465833145330.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
 <884791796.213185.1466667686999.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
 <20160623133001.GF21246@momjian.us>
 <1877e60a-a970-18b5-453c-e342f96150e6@postgrespro.ru>
 <CAKFQuwZKtS0Ad=a1E9_mkdYwLMq+JA3YjmhCvjJ1JF+3BU8a0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <d469b177-fd4d-5a5b-769e-620957ec1a64@postgrespro.ru>
 <CAKFQuwb2gp8n2ai_agyJod5BTYxL7ek0AjB9zifDSceK6QntnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoaWTgbtd2RTwVvySMVoOcHmWq66rCCxtVywOOX3FJy4tQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <31915.1466703655@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoaFQZeqmAo3CdivNu70coB=9eM5OroKYtNcTuMaC1kuUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <32684.1466704957@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <734e50cd-c563-4afd-d1c8-80f244b3265e@postgrespro.ru>
 <CAFj8pRDGxe=cdcZ7pur=2WeW9O3MQCZTBEAOJfQ7OLQJaYXDvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <b2a39359-3282-b402-f4a3-057aae500ee7@postgrespro.ru>
 <1285870380.13225431.1471272994354.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
 <CA+TgmoZEWyszzwDGFZ2i1psDgHrdPeZE5Hvs570Q1KfkCfqwgw@mail.gmail.com>
 <d7ffcce8-491f-7969-71a6-73272ad31dfd@postgrespro.ru>
 <60cc3122-0950-e455-21fe-de89882e285d@postgrespro.ru>
Subject: Re: Bug in to_timestamp().
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Length: 1522
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 5:15 PM, Artur Zakirov <a.zakirov@postgrespro=
.ru> wrote:
>I attached new patch "0001-to-timestamp-format-checking-v2.patch". It=20
>fixes behaviour for Amul's scenarious:

>
Great.
>
>> Following are few scenarios where we break existing behaviour:
>>
>> SELECT TO_TIMESTAMP('2015-12-31 13:43:36', 'YYYY MM DD HH24 MI SS');
>> SELECT TO_TIMESTAMP('2011$03!18 23_38_15', 'YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS');
>> SELECT TO_TIMESTAMP('2011*03*18 23^38&15', 'YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS');
>> SELECT TO_TIMESTAMP('2011*03!18 #%23^38$15', 'YYYY-MM-DD$$$HH24:MI:SS');
>>
>> But current patch behaviour is not that much bad either at least we have=
 errors, but I am not sure about community acceptance.
>>
>> I would like to divert communities' attention on following case:
>> SELECT TO_TIMESTAMP('2013--10-01', 'YYYY-MM-DD');
>
>
>For queries above the patch gives an output without any error.
>
>
>> Another is, shouldn=E2=80=99t we have error in following cases?
>> SELECT TO_TIMESTAMP('2016-06-13 99:99:99', 'YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS');
>> SELECT TO_TIMESTAMP('2016-02-30 15:43:36', 'YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS');
>
>
>I attached second patch "0002-to-timestamp-validation-v2.patch". With it=20
>PostgreSQL perform additional checks for date and time. But as I wrote=20
>there is another patch in the thread "to_date_valid()" wich differs from=20
>this patch.

>

Hmm. I haven't really looked into the code, but with applying both patches =
it looks precisely imitate Oracle's behaviour. Thanks.

Regards,
Amul Sul


--=20
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers