Brendan Jurd a écrit :
> On 10/13/06, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut a écrit :
>> >
>> > There is an inconsistency here: 'IYYY' is the four-digit ISO year,
>> 'IW'
>> > is the two-digit ISO week, but 'ID' would be the one-digit ISO
>> > day-of-the-week. I'm not sure we can fix that, but I wanted to point
>> > it out.
>> >
>>
>> Is there a two digit ISO day of the week ? If not, we should use ID. As
>> you say, I don't know what we can do about that. I used Brendan Jurd's
>> idea, perhaps he can tell us more on this matter.
>>
>
> Thanks for your work so far Guillaume. I agree with Peter, it is
> inconsistent to have a one-digit field represented by a two-character
> code. However, I don't see a way around it. 'D' is already taken to
> mean the non-ISO day-of-week, and 'I' is taken to mean the last digit
> of the ISO year (although to be honest I don't see where this would be
> useful).
>
> This sort of thing is not unprecedented in to_char(). For example,
> the codes 'HH24' and 'HH12' are four characters long, but resolve to a
> two-digit result. 'DAY' resolves to nine characters, and so on.
>
> Basically I think we're stuck with ID for day-of-week and IDDD for
> day-of-year.
>
> I will take a look at implementing 'isoyear' for extract(), and also
> start putting together a patch for the documentation. If Guillaume is
> still interested in adding the IDDD field to to_char(), wonderful, if
> not I will pick up from his ID patch and add IDDD to it.
>
Sorry for the late answer. I'm still interested but, to be honest, I
don't think I will have the time to do it. Perhaps in a month or so.
Regards.
--
Guillaume.
<!-- http://abs.traduc.org/
http://lfs.traduc.org/
http://traduc.postgresqlfr.org/ -->
