On 25.09.2019 22:55, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:05 PM Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
I've reordered the patchset. I moved the most debatable patch, which
introduces and RR and changes parsing of YYY, YY and Y to the
end. I think we have enough of time in this
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:05 PM Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> I've reordered the patchset. I moved the most debatable patch, which
> introduces and RR and changes parsing of YYY, YY and Y to the
> end. I think we have enough of time in this release cycle to decide
> whether we want this.
>
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:08 AM Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 1:31 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 2:43 AM Andrew Dunstan
> > wrote:
> > > On 7/23/19 6:48 PM, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
> > > > Some concrete pieces of review:
> > > >> +
> > > >> +
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 1:31 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 2:43 AM Andrew Dunstan
> wrote:
> > On 7/23/19 6:48 PM, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
> > > Some concrete pieces of review:
> > >> +
> > >> +FF1
> > >> +decisecond (0-9)
> > >> +
> > >>
> > >>
On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 2:43 AM Andrew Dunstan
wrote:
> On 7/23/19 6:48 PM, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
> > Some concrete pieces of review:
> >> +
> >> +FF1
> >> +decisecond (0-9)
> >> +
> >>
> >> Let's not use such weird terms as "deciseconds". We could say
> >>
On 7/23/19 6:48 PM, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
> Some concrete pieces of review:
>> +
>> +FF1
>> +decisecond (0-9)
>> +
>>
>> Let's not use such weird terms as "deciseconds". We could say
>> "fractional seconds, 1 digit" etc. or something like that.
> And what about
On 7/24/19 4:25 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2019-07-24 00:48, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
>> It seems that our YY works like RR should:
>>
>> SELECT to_date('69', 'YY');
>> to_date
>>
>> 2069-01-01
>> (1 row)
>>
>> SELECT to_date('70', 'YY');
>> to_date
>>
>>
On 2019-07-24 00:48, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
> It seems that our YY works like RR should:
>
> SELECT to_date('69', 'YY');
> to_date
>
> 2069-01-01
> (1 row)
>
> SELECT to_date('70', 'YY');
> to_date
>
> 1970-01-01
> (1 row)
>
> But by the standard first two
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 1:50 AM Nikita Glukhov wrote:
> So it's unclear what we should do:
> - implement YY and RR strictly following the standard only in .datetime()
> - fix YY implementation in to_date()/to_timestamp() and implement RR
> - use our non-standard templates in .datetime()
Also
On 23.07.2019 16:44, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I think the best way forward here is to focus first on patch 0002 and
get the additional format templates in, independent of any surrounding
JSON functionality.
In particular, remove parse_datetime() and all the related API changes,
then it becomes
I think the best way forward here is to focus first on patch 0002 and
get the additional format templates in, independent of any surrounding
JSON functionality.
In particular, remove parse_datetime() and all the related API changes,
then it becomes much simpler.
The codes FF1..FF6 that you added
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: tested, passed
Documentation:not tested
Hi,
In general, the feature looks good. It is consistent with
12 matches
Mail list logo
