Re: [GENERAL] ISO week dates

I am seeing buildfarm failures from the new regression tests added by
this patch. Would someone research why this is happening?

http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_status.pl

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

bruce wrote:
>
> Patch applied. Thanks.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Brendan Jurd wrote:
> > The attached patch implements my proposal to extend support for the
> > ISO week date calendar.
> >
> > I have added two new format fields for use with to_char, to_date and
> > to_timestamp:
> > - ID for day-of-week
> > - IDDD for day-of-year
> >
> > This makes it possible to convert ISO week dates to and from text
> > fully represented in either week ('IYYY-IW-ID') or day-of-year
> > ('IYYY-IDDD') format.
> >
> > I have also added an 'isoyear' field for use with extract / date_part.
> >
> > The patch includes documentation updates and some extra tests in the
> > regression suite for the new fields.
> >
> > I have tried to implement these features with as little disruption to
> > the existing code as possible. I built on the existing date2iso*
> > functions in src/backend/utils/adt/timestamp.c, and added a few
> > functions of my own, but I wonder if these functions would be more
> > appropriately located in datetime.c, alongside date2j and j2date?
> >
> > I'd also like to raise the topic of how conversion from text to ISO
> > week dates should be handled, where the user has specified a bogus
> > mixture of fields. Existing code basically ignores these issues; for
> > example, if a user were to call to_date('1998-01-01 2454050',
> > 'YYYY-MM-DD J') the function returns 2006-01-01, a result of setting
> > the year field from YYYY, then overwriting year, month and day with
> > the values from the Julian date in J, then setting the month and day
> > normally from MM and DD.
> >
> > 2006-01-01 is not a valid representation of either of the values the
> > user specified. Now you might say "ask a silly question, get a silly
> > answer"; the user shouldn't send nonsense arguments to to_date and
> > expect a sensible result. But perhaps the right way to respond to a
> > broken timestamp definition is to throw an error, rather than behave
> > as though everything has gone to plan, and return something which is
> > not correct.
> >
> > The same situation can arise if the user mixes ISO and Gregorian data;
> > how should Postgres deal with something like to_date('2006-250',
> > 'IYYY-DDD')? The current behaviour in my patch is actually to assume
> > that the user meant to say 'IYYY-IDDD', since "the 250th Gregorian day
> > of the ISO year 2006" is total gibberish. But perhaps it should be
> > throwing an error message.
> >
> > That's all for now, thanks for your time.
> > BJ
>
> [ Attachment, skipping... ]
>
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
> EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
>
> + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +