On Dec 29, 2014, at 7:06 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > In bug #12367 > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20141229031218.8013.51...@wrigleys.postgresql.org > we see yet another iteration of somebody trying to combine to_char's > IYYY specifier with regular Gregorian MM/DD fields. > > It occurs to me that this is largely our own fault, because the fine > manual just defines IYYY as "ISO year". I'm sure the typical newbie > thought process is "that sounds like a standard year, I'll use that". > There is a warning against combining IYYY with MM/DD, but it's buried > in trivia far down the page. > > I did a bit of googling and came across > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_week_date > in which this construct is called an "ISO week-numbering year". > > Not having a copy of ISO 8601, I'm not sure if that's the standard's > terminology; but ISTM that if we consistently referred to the Ixxx > format specifiers as "ISO week-numbering foo" then this type of error > might become a little less attractive. > > Objections, better ideas?
I've seen this problem a few times on IRC too. An explicit warning / cross reference on IYYY that the user almost certainly wants YYYY instead might be even better. Cheers, Steve -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
