Re: this date format thing.

YEAH! Also, the casting, can it be fixed, to be less forgiving and not making
assumptions?

Karel Zak wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 03:40:59PM +0100, Peter Haworth wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 16:17:05 +0200, Karel Zak wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 12:36:07PM +0100, Peter Haworth wrote:
>>>
>>>>jnlstats=> set datestyle='ISO';
>>>>SET
>>>>
>>>>jnlstats=> select '2001-31-12'::date;
>>>>    date
>>>>------------
>>>> 2001-12-31
>>>>(1 row)
>>>>
>>>>jnlstats=> select to_date('2001-31-12','yyyy-mm-dd');
>>>>  to_date
>>>>------------
>>>> 2003-07-14
>>>>(1 row)
>>>
>>> Are you sure is there 31 months ('mm')?
>>
>>No. That's the point. Those examples are of dates being accepted which
>>shouldn't be. If someone enters a date with the month and day swapped,
>>postgres doesn't necessarily reject it.
>>
>>When using to_date(), there seems to be no range checking at all. This
>>is even worse than the above, which will at least reject strings if they
>>don't fit into any date format. to_date() seems to treat the month as
>>"number of months since the beginning of the specified year" rather than
>>"calendar month within the specified year".
>
>
>  Hmm, You're probably right that to_date/timestamp is too optimistic
>  and liberal if you want to use it for data checking. Oracle:
>
>  SVRMGR> select to_date('2001-31-12','yyyy-mm-dd') from dual;
>  TO_DATE('
>  ---------
>  ORA-01843: not a valid month
>
>
>  I will fix it in to_date/timestamp in 7.4. Thanks.
>
>     Karel
>
>