| From: | Arthur Zakirov <a(dot)zakirov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: to_timestamp docs |
| Date: | 2019-05-04 16:11:21 |
| Message-ID: | CAKNkYnzvLqz0n6m37W_pX0547pzCE-PepEPs5gNexy7n-+kZJw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:03 AM Arthur Zakirov <a(dot)zakirov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 12:49 AM Alexander Korotkov
> <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> > Actually, FX takes effect on subsequent format patterns. This is not
> > documented, but it copycats Oracle behavior. Sure, normally FX should
> > be specified as the first item. We could document current behavior or
> > restrict specifying FX not as first item. This is also not new in 12,
> > so documenting current behavior is better for compatibility.
>
> I went to Oracle's documentation. It seems that the behavior is
> slightly different.
> Their documentation says:
>
> "A modifier can appear in a format model more than once. In such a case,
> each subsequent occurrence toggles the effects of the modifier. Its effects are
> enabled for the portion of the model following its first occurrence, and then
> disabled for the portion following its second, and then reenabled for
> the portion
> following its third, and so on."
What about the patch I attached? It fixes the explanation of FX option a little.
--
Arthur Zakirov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| fx_pattern.patch | text/x-patch | 910 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2019-05-04 17:34:06 | Re: Usage of epoch in txid_current |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-05-04 15:48:53 | Re: Wrong return code in vacuumdb when multiple jobs are used |