Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 1:06 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I guess though your point is that this is part of the general tightening
>> of to_timestamp()'s error checking, and doesn't need a separate entry?
> You guess correctly =)
> There might be some value in changing the wording of that paragraph
> about the "general tightening" to emphasise that queries which
> previously succeeded (with some parts being misinterpreted or silently
> disregarded) will now throw an error.
OK, done. I wrote
Previous versions would often ignore or silently misread input that did not match the format string. Such
caseswill now result in an error.
regards, tom lane