Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Postgresql likes Tuesday...

From: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>,PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Postgresql likes Tuesday...
Date: 2002-09-30 21:11:23
Message-ID: 1033420283.2444.16.camel@rh72.home.ee (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 03:49, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> writes:
> > On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 03:31, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I notice that 2001-12-31 is considered part of the first week of 2002,
> >> which is also pretty surprising:
> 
> > There are at least 3 different ways to start week numbering:
> > ...
> > I suspect it depends on locale which should be used.
> 
> Perhaps.  But I think there are two distinct issues here.  One is
> whether EXTRACT(week) is assigning reasonable week numbers to dates;
> this depends on your convention for which day is the first of a week
> as well as your convention for the first week of a year (both possibly
> should depend on locale as Hannu suggests).  The other issue is what
> to_date(...,'WWYYYY') should do to produce a date representing a week
> number.  Shouldn't it always produce the first date of that week?

Producing middle-of-the week date is least likely to get a date in last
year.

Also should  

select to_timestamp('01102002','DDMMYYYY');

also produce midday (12:00) for time, instead of current 00:00 ?

-----------------
Hannu



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-09-30 21:26:01
Subject: Re: [SQL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
Previous:From: Andrew SullivanDate: 2002-09-30 21:07:18
Subject: Re: 7.2.3 fixes (was Re: Cause of missing pg_clog files)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group