Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Steve Crawford > <scrawf...@pinpointresearch.com> wrote: >> To me, 2016-02-30 is an invalid date that should generate an error.
> I don't particularly disagree with that, but on the other hand, as > mentioned earlier, to_timestamp() is here for Oracle compatibility, > and if it doesn't do what Oracle's function does, then (1) it's not > useful for people migrating from Oracle and (2) we're making up the > behavior out of whole cloth. I think things that we invent ourselves > should reject stuff like this, but in a compatibility function we > might want to, say, have compatibility. Agreed, mostly, but ... how far are we prepared to go on that? The one thing I know about that is different from Oracle and is not something that most people would consider clearly wrong is the behavior of the FM prefix. We think it's a prefix that modifies only the next format code; they think it's a toggle. If we make that act like Oracle, we will silently break an awful lot of applications, and there will be *no way* to write code that is correct under both interpretations. (And no, I do not want to hear "let's fix it with a GUC".) So I'm afraid we're between a rock and a hard place on that one --- but if we let that stand, the argument that Oracle's to_timestamp should be treated as right by definition loses a lot of air. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers