Re: Possibly misleading documentation of Template Patterns for Date/Time Formatting

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  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