I wrote:
> Mark Lorenz writes:
>> But, nevertheless, what about adding the function to accept the DAY, D
>> (and maybe the Q) patterns for to_date() - in this case, of course, in
>> the uncorrelated version? to_char() handles them properly. And, from my
>> point of view, there is no reason why
Mark Lorenz writes:
> with a bit space to this issue, I re-read your comments. I am beginning
> to understand what you mean or - better - what's wrong with my thoughts.
> When I understand you correctly, you say, the WW can start at any
> weekday, and is not fixed to Sunday, right? In your
Hi Tom,
with a bit space to this issue, I re-read your comments. I am beginning
to understand what you mean or - better - what's wrong with my thoughts.
When I understand you correctly, you say, the WW can start at any
weekday, and is not fixed to Sunday, right? In your opinion the WW
starts
I just noticed that this patch has been classified under "bug fixes",
but per Tom's comments, this is not a bug fix -- it seems we would need
a new format code to implement some different week numbering mechanism.
That seems a new feature, not a bug fix.
Therefore I propose to move this in
I wrote:
> Either way, though, the WW weeks don't line up with the D weeks,
> and we're not likely to make them do so.
> So I think an acceptable version of this feature has to involve
> defining at least one new format code and maybe as many as three,
> to produce year, week and day values that
Cleysson Lima writes:
> this is a review of the patch: chg_to_date_wwd.patch
> There hasn't been any problem, at least that I've been able to find.
AFAICS, the point of this patch is to make to_date symmetrical
with the definition of WW that the other patch wants for to_char.
But the other
Em sex., 10 de jan. de 2020 às 09:22, Mark Lorenz
escreveu:
> Updated the chg_to_date_wwd.patch with additional tests (because it
> works not only for 'D' pattern but also for all day patterns like 'Day'
> or 'DY'). Added the necessary documentation change.
>
> (The fix_to_char_wwd.patch
Updated the chg_to_date_wwd.patch with additional tests (because it
works not only for 'D' pattern but also for all day patterns like 'Day'
or 'DY'). Added the necessary documentation change.
(The fix_to_char_wwd.patch from
f4e740a8de3ad1e762a28f6ff253ea4f%40four-two.de is still
Mark Lorenz writes:
>> Why not? These format codes are specified as
>> Dday of the week, Sunday (1) to Saturday (7)
>> WW week number of year (1–53) (the first week starts on the first day
>> of the year)
> I don't want to create any connection here. The day is calculated
> correctly.
while preparing the patch for the Commitfest, I found a bug in the
to_char() function that is quite correlated with this issue:
SELECT to_char('1997-02-01'::date, '-WW-D')
returns: 1997-05-7 -> which is ok, I believe. Feb, 1st was on
Saturday,
so counting from Sundays, it was day 7 of
Hi Tom,
thanks for answering!
I commited two different patches:
---
The first one is for the strange behaviour of to_char(), which could be
seen as a bug, I believe. As described earlier, to_char() with the
'WW-D' pattern could return wrong week numbers.
The non-ISO week number is
Mark Lorenz writes:
> while preparing the patch for the Commitfest, I found a bug in the
> to_char() function that is quite correlated with this issue:
> SELECT to_char('1997-02-01'::date, '-WW-D')
> returns: 1997-05-7 -> which is ok, I believe. Feb, 1st was on Saturday,
> so counting
Mark Lorenz writes:
> I got the advice to split the patches for:
> - fixing the to_char() function
> - changing the to_date()/to_timestamp() behaviour
> So I appended the split patches.
I'm a bit skeptical of the premise here. The fine manual says
In to_timestamp and to_date, weekday names
Hi,
I got the advice to split the patches for:
- fixing the to_char() function
- changing the to_date()/to_timestamp() behaviour
So I appended the split patches.
Kind regards,
Mark Lorenz
From 4e35bd88bef1916e7d11ad0776b3075e3183f7d0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mark Lorenz
Date: Fri, 20
Hi,
I fixed the described issue in the to char() function.
The output of the current version is:
postgres=# SELECT to_char('1997-02-01'::date, '-WW-D');
to_char
-
1997-05-7
(1 row)
postgres=# SELECT to_char('1997-02-03'::date, '-WW-D');
to_char
-
1997-05-2
(1 row)
Hi,
while preparing the patch for the Commitfest, I found a bug in the
to_char() function that is quite correlated with this issue:
SELECT to_char('1997-02-01'::date, '-WW-D')
returns: 1997-05-7 -> which is ok, I believe. Feb, 1st was on Saturday,
so counting from Sundays, it was day 7
Hi,
I apologize for the mistake.
For the mailing list correspondence I created this mail account. But I
forgot to change the sender name. So, the "postgres" name appeared as
sender name in the mailing list. I changed it.
Kind regards,
Mark/S-Man42
Hi,
some days ago I ran into a problem
Hi,
some days ago I ran into a problem with the to_date() function. I
originally described it on StackExchange:
https://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/250111/unexpected-behaviour-for-to-date-with-week-number-and-week-day
The problem:
If you want to parse a date string with year, week and
18 matches
Mail list logo
