[DOCS] Date/Time Types : internals
Hi, At the bottom of the page about Date/Time types ( http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/interactive/datatype-datetime.html ) there is this sentence : Date conventions before the 19th century make for interesting reading, but are not consistent enough to warrant coding into a date/time handler. This sentence seemed very strange to me, and I am not sure to really understand what it implies (or not) for the user. Could someone explain that this really means and implies? Thank you, Florence Cousin. -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
Re: [DOCS] separate Privileges section for SQL reference pages?
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of mar abr 17 14:40:37 -0300 2012: >> It occurred to me that it could be useful to separate the information >> about which privileges are necessary for a certain SQL command into a >> separate section "Privileges" on each SQL command reference page. >> Currently, this information is usually distributed across the >> Description and Notes sections and sometimes hard to find. >> >> What do you think about this? > > Sounds good to me. Same here. I think that would be a really great improvement. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
Re: [DOCS] Date/Time Types : internals
Florence Cousin wrote: > At the bottom of the page about Date/Time types ( > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/interactive/datatype-datetime.html > ) > there is this sentence : > > Date conventions before the 19th century make for interesting > reading, but are not consistent enough to warrant coding into a > date/time handler. > > > This sentence seemed very strange to me, and I am not sure to > really understand what it implies (or not) for the user. Could > someone explain that this really means and implies? You can get some idea by reading this page, especially the "Adoption" section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar I guess the point is that for hundreds of years, the same day could have a different date depending which country's calendar you were looking at. I'm not entirely clear why there's a problem if you pick the Gregorian calendar and apply it retroactively. If George Washington was able to adapt to his birthday changing, I think I could deal with it, too: http://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/washington/ II mean, there are still a lot of other calendars in use today, and we don't let that stop us from using the Gregorian calendar. -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
Re: [DOCS] Date/Time Types : internals
"Kevin Grittner" writes: > I guess the point is that for hundreds of years, the same day could > have a different date depending which country's calendar you were > looking at. I'm not entirely clear why there's a problem if you > pick the Gregorian calendar and apply it retroactively. Which is, in fact, exactly what our code does. I think that bit in the docs is trying to explain why we do that rather than try to get the code to reflect what people really used back then. A possibly comparable point is that for timezone info we use the Olsen database (tzdata), which *does* make an effort to reflect historical realities. In consequence, at least once every several months we get somebody complaining about what a strange GMT offset he's seeing for timestamps before 1900 or so. If there's anyone out there who actually likes that behavior, we've not heard about it. (Not that I am going to try to get Olsen et al to change their policy.) regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
Re: [DOCS] separate Privileges section for SQL reference pages?
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > It occurred to me that it could be useful to separate the information > about which privileges are necessary for a certain SQL command into a > separate section "Privileges" on each SQL command reference page. > Currently, this information is usually distributed across the > Description and Notes sections and sometimes hard to find. > > What do you think about this? I think this is a great idea. Do you need help? gabrielle -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
