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
also produce midday (12:00) for time, instead of current 00:00 ?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2002-09-30 21:26:01|
|Subject: Re: [SQL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP |
|Previous:||From: Andrew Sullivan||Date: 2002-09-30 21:07:18|
|Subject: Re: 7.2.3 fixes (was Re: Cause of missing pg_clog files)|