Re: Strange results from to_timestamp

Mario Weilguni wrote:
> to_timestamp is only for Oracle compatibility? I always thought it's
> some sort of sql standard. What's the sql compliant way to do this?

There isn't a standard method, which is why we added Oracle functions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
> Regards,
> mario weilguni
>
>
> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von:
> pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] Im Auftrag von Tom Lane
> Gesendet: Freitag, 07. April 2006 06:09 An: Mario Weilguni Cc:
> PostgreSQL-development Betreff: Re: [HACKERS] Strange results from
> to_timestamp
>
> Mario Weilguni <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com> writes:
> > I think all except the first one should raise a warning, isn't it?
>
> to_timestamp (and friends) all seem to me to act pretty bizarre when
> faced with input that doesn't match the given format string. However,
> in the end that is an Oracle-compatibility function, and there is only
> one measure of what it should do: what does Oracle do in the same case.
> Can anyone try these examples on a recent Oracle version?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
> choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
> match
>

--
Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +