Re: [BUGS] BUG #2977: dow doesn't conform to ISO-8601

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Adriaan van Os <postgres(at)microbizz(dot)nl>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #2977: dow doesn't conform to ISO-8601
Date: 2007-02-19 17:44:28
Message-ID: 200702191744.l1JHiSw15345@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-patches


Updated version applied. I reduced the numering changes for the macros.

There was also documentation text for "dow" and a few others that said
"(for <type>timestamp</type> values only)", but in fact the field worked
for "timestamptz" and "date" too, so I removed the mentions. If people
get confused, I will come up with new wording, like "doesn't work for
interval or time", which I think is pretty obvious. I remember people
got confused in the past about this, so maybe we still need something.

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

Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> I have implemented 'isodow' with the attached patch.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 7. Februar 2007 11:24 schrieb Adriaan van Os:
> > > Section 9.9.1 of the Postgres docs
> > > <http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/interactive/functions-datetime.html>
> > > mentions that the "week" subfield of the date_part function conforms to the
> > > ISO-8601 standard.
> >
> > I see no such claim there.
> >
> > > You can not, in the same function, ignore ISO-8601 for one subfield and
> > > follow it in another.
> >
> > I think we have pretty well shown that we can.
> >
> > > Besides, if in the same week Sunday comes before Monday, how can the result
> > > of the "week" and "dow" fields conform to each other ?
> >
> > They don't.
> >
> > > If "dow" can not be changed for reasons of backward compatibility, I
> > > suggest a new subfield "dayofweek" that does conform to the standard.
> >
> > That might be reasonable. (Or maybe "isodow".)
> >
> > --
> > Peter Eisentraut
> > http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
>
> --
> 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. +

>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

--
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. +

Attachment Content-Type Size
/rtmp/diff text/x-diff 7.5 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Arjen van der Meijden 2007-02-19 18:52:23 BUG #3031: PHP (and others?) cannot close a connection when "in" a COPY-statement
Previous Message Dr. Axel Reimann 2007-02-19 13:43:18 BUG #3030: Unable to query SQL_WCHAR column via ODBC

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2007-02-19 17:51:42 Re: [PATCHES] WIP patch - INSERT-able log statements
Previous Message Guillaume Smet 2007-02-19 17:31:53 Re: [PATCHES] WIP patch - INSERT-able log statements