From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | David Kubecka <davidkubecka366(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Possibly misleading documentation of Template Patterns for Date/Time Formatting |
Date: | 2020-04-17 15:52:08 |
Message-ID: | 4089.1587138728@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
David Kubecka <davidkubecka366(at)gmail(dot)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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2020-04-17 15:53:23 | Re: Possibly misleading documentation of Template Patterns for Date/Time Formatting |
Previous Message | David Kubecka | 2020-04-17 15:27:17 | Possibly misleading documentation of Template Patterns for Date/Time Formatting |