Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> It's a little confusing, though, that you documented it as Mm.n.d but
> then in the text the order of explanation is d then m then n. Maybe
> switch the text around so the order matches, or even use something
> like Mmonth.occurrence.day.
Yeah, I struggled with that text for a bit. It doesn't seem to make sense
to explain that n means the n'th occurrence of a particular d value before
we've explained what d is, so explaining the fields in their syntactic
order seems like a loser. But we could describe m first without that
problem.
Not sure about replacing the m/n/d notation --- that's straight out of
POSIX, so inventing our own terminology might just confuse people who
do know the spec.
regards, tom lane
