Re: Possibly misleading documentation of Template Patterns forDate/Time Formatting
От | David Kubecka |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Possibly misleading documentation of Template Patterns forDate/Time Formatting |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAKtMQEfCug_J85gV5ca-YQBGxYS1DVW2p-LmWUWrAtJ8YV46yg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Possibly misleading documentation of Template Patterns for Date/Time Formatting (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Possibly misleading documentation of Template Patterns for Date/Time Formatting
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
pá 17. 4. 2020 v 17:52 odesílatel Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> napsal:
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.
I see. I wonder if it wouldn't be better e.g. to reference this info from all the ignored fields in the table through an asterisk comment just under the table (thus making the list of unsuppored patterns even more explicit). Just an idea, It's definitely not an easy task to make a good documentation :-)
Anyway, could you shed some light if there's any particular reason why TO_DATE( '2012-4', 'YYYY-Q' ) isn't supported?
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: