Re: Possibly misleading documentation of Template Patterns for Date/Time Formatting
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Possibly misleading documentation of Template Patterns for Date/Time Formatting |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4089.1587138728@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Possibly misleading documentation of Template Patterns for Date/Time Formatting (David Kubecka <davidkubecka366@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Possibly misleading documentation of Template Patterns forDate/Time Formatting
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
David Kubecka <davidkubecka366@gmail.com> writes: > on the official docs > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/functions-formatting.html see the table > 9-24 and Pattern "Q". The doc (for version 9.6) says: > quarter (ignored by to_date and to_timestamp) > All the later versions of the doc (10, 11, 12) miss the "ignored" note It's still there, just further down: * In to_timestamp and to_date, weekday names or numbers (DAY, D, and related field types) are accepted but are ignored for purposes of computing the result. The same is true for quarter (Q) fields. I think this was changed because we noticed that the docs failed to point out the issue for weekday fields, and cramming similar annotations into their already-long table entries didn't make sense. So the info got moved to the commentary below. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: