| From: | "Mario Weilguni" <mario(dot)weilguni(at)icomedias(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Strange results from to_timestamp |
| Date: | 2006-04-07 13:08:09 |
| Message-ID: | FA095C015271B64E99B197937712FD020E4B090F@freedom.grz.icomedias.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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?
Regards,
mario weilguni
-----Ursprüngliche 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?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-04-07 13:24:06 | Re: GIN - Generalized Inverted iNdex. |
| Previous Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2006-04-07 13:05:12 | GIN - Generalized Inverted iNdex. |