Re: Possibly misleading documentation of Template Patterns for Date/Time Formatting - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Possibly misleading documentation of Template Patterns for Date/Time Formatting
Date
Msg-id 4089.1587138728@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Possibly misleading documentation of Template Patterns for Date/Time Formatting  (David Kubecka <davidkubecka366@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Possibly misleading documentation of Template Patterns forDate/Time Formatting
List pgsql-bugs
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.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: David Kubecka
Date:
Subject: Possibly misleading documentation of Template Patterns for Date/Time Formatting
Next
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: Possibly misleading documentation of Template Patterns forDate/Time Formatting