Re: Created feature for to_date() conversion using patterns 'YYYY-WW', 'YYYY-WW-D', 'YYYY-MM-W' and 'YYYY-MM-W-D'

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Mark Lorenz <postgres(at)four-two(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Created feature for to_date() conversion using patterns 'YYYY-WW', 'YYYY-WW-D', 'YYYY-MM-W' and 'YYYY-MM-W-D'
Date: 2020-02-28 15:57:09
Message-ID: 20200228155709.GA32245@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I just noticed that this patch has been classified under "bug fixes",
but per Tom's comments, this is not a bug fix -- it seems we would need
a new format code to implement some different week numbering mechanism.
That seems a new feature, not a bug fix.

Therefore I propose to move this in Commitfest from "Bug fixes" to
"Server features". This has implications such as not automatically
moving to next commitfest if no update appears during this one.

I've never personally had to write calendaring applications, so I don't
have an opinion on whether this is useful. Why isn't it sufficient to
rely on ISO week/day numbering (IW/ID), which appears to be more
consistent? I think we should consider adding more codes only if
real-world use cases exist for them.

Álvaro Herrera
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2020-02-28 16:03:59 Re: Making psql error out on output failures
Previous Message Hamid Akhtar 2020-02-28 15:46:18 Re: Minor issues in .pgpass