Re: [HACKERS] Comments on patch for date_trunc( 'week', ... );

2004-06-10 Thread Robert Creager
When grilled further on (Wed, 3 Mar 2004 22:40:50 -0500 (EST)), Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> confessed: > > Well, it must have hit the lists if I have put it in the patch queue, no? > > --- > > Hey Bruce, > > I never

[HACKERS] Comments on patch for date_trunc( 'week', ... );

2004-06-09 Thread Robert Creager
Per a brief conversation with Tom, I've created a patch for adding support for 'week' within the date_trunc function. Within the patch I added a couple of test cases and associated target output, and changed the documentation to add 'week' appropriately. Comments? Should I of bypassed this list

Re: [HACKERS] Comments on patch for date_trunc( 'week', ... );

2004-03-04 Thread Bruce Momjian
Patch applied. Thanks. --- Robert Creager wrote: -- Start of PGP signed section. > > Per a brief conversation with Tom, I've created a patch for adding support for > 'week' within the date_trunc function. > > Within the

Re: [HACKERS] Comments on patch for date_trunc( 'week', ... );

2004-03-03 Thread Bruce Momjian
Well, it must have hit the lists if I have put it in the patch queue, no? --- Hey Bruce, I never saw the patch hit the hackers list. Did any of you smart folks take a look at it? Cheers, Rob When grilled further on (Wed,

Re: [HACKERS] Comments on patch for date_trunc( 'week', ... );

2004-03-03 Thread Robert Creager
Hey Bruce, I never saw the patch hit the hackers list. Did any of you smart folks take a look at it? Cheers, Rob When grilled further on (Wed, 3 Mar 2004 13:58:02 -0500 (EST)), Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> confessed: > > Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list