Re: [GENERAL] ISO week dates

Followup --- something weird is going on. I am seeing _random_ failures
of the regression tests here in that same place, and the build farm
seems to fail in the same place, but with different row counts.

I am heading to bed but when I wake up, if it still an issue, I will
revert the patch.

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

Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> 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. +

--
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. +