On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 10:06:09AM -0500, Tom Lane 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 occ
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> David G Johnston writes:
> > Tom Lane-2 wrote
> >> There is a warning against combining IYYY with MM/DD, but it's buried
> >> in trivia far down the page.
>
> > Can we move this warning/notice into code? Basically warn/disallow
> > IYYY-MM-DD
David G Johnston writes:
> Tom Lane-2 wrote
>> There is a warning against combining IYYY with MM/DD, but it's buried
>> in trivia far down the page.
> Can we move this warning/notice into code? Basically warn/disallow
> IYYY-MM-DD (and similar) as a valid format?
> And why not make it an error.
Tom Lane-2 wrote
> In bug #12367
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/
> 20141229031218.8013.51171@.postgresql
>
> There is a warning against combining IYYY with MM/DD, but it's buried
> in trivia far down the page.
Can we move this warning/notice into code? Basically warn/disallow
IYYY-MM-D
On Dec 29, 2014, at 7:06 AM, Tom Lane 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
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
