| From: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joseph Koshakow <koshy44(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Date-Time dangling unit fix |
| Date: | 2023-03-05 14:00:01 |
| Message-ID: | 472e077b-3528-f161-a910-e3a747e1747d@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello,
05.03.2023 02:31, Joseph Koshakow wrote:
> I also don't have a copy of ISO 8601 and wasn't able to find anything
> about this variant on Google. I did find this comment in datetime.c
>
> /*
> * Was this an "ISO date" with embedded field labels? An
> * example is "y2001m02d04" - thomas 2001-02-04
> */
>
> which comes from this commit [1], which was authored by Thomas Lockhart
> (presumably the same thomas from the comment).
I've also seen another interesting comment in datetime.c:
/*
* Was this an "ISO time" with embedded field labels? An
* example is "h04mm05s06" - thomas 2001-02-04
*/
In fact,
SELECT time 'h04mm05s06';
doesn't work for many years, but
SELECT time 'h04mm05s06.0';
still does.
I've just found that I mentioned it some time ago:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/dff75442-2468-f74f-568c-6006e141062f%40gmail.com
Best regards,
Alexander
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ankit Kumar Pandey | 2023-03-05 15:27:45 | Re: How does pg implement the visiblity of one tuple for specified transaction? |
| Previous Message | jacktby@gmail.com | 2023-03-05 13:19:02 | How does pg implement the visiblity of one tuple for specified transaction? |