Re: [HACKERS] Re: TO_CHAR() - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Lockhart
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Re: TO_CHAR()
Date
Msg-id 37F61B2B.FBE8F847@alumni.caltech.edu
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Re: TO_CHAR()  (wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck))
List pgsql-hackers
>     If  incorporating into main tree, don't forget that TO_CHAR()
>     must also be capable to handle NUMERIC/DECIMAL/INTEGER with a
>     rich  set  of  fomatting styles. Actually I'm in doubt if you
>     both are a little too much focusing on DATE/TIME.
>     This means that there  could  be  different  input  arguments
>     (type and number!) to TO_CHAR().

Not a problem. In some cases, we are only an alias away from having it
(e.g. to_char(int) == text(int4)). Not sure about *all* of the others,
but the ugliest will be the to_char(datetime) and to_date(text,format)
stuff, so that is a good place to start.
                  - Thomas

-- 
Thomas Lockhart                lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "D'Arcy" "J.M." Cain
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] postmaster dead on startup from unportable SSL patch
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Tricky query, tricky response