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

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: Possibly misleading documentation of Template Patterns forDate/Time Formatting
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwZK1yam_xN8HVQw17UtX4bdYPg8AVX3ECatZ0v2mHvSaQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Possibly misleading documentation of Template Patterns for Date/Time Formatting  (David Kubecka <davidkubecka366@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-bugs
On Friday, April 17, 2020, David Kubecka <davidkubecka366@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,

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 leading the user to think that it should work but it doesn't, at least on 12.1:

# select TO_DATE( '2012-4', 'YYYY-Q' );
  to_date  
------------
 2012-01-01
(1 row)

Is this an expected behaviour, i.e. the documentation is just wrong or it really should work?

It was moved to the usage notes section, and expanded to be more correct.

 to_timestamp and to_date, weekday names or numbers (DAYD, and related field types) are accepted but are ignored for purposes of computing the result. The same is true for quarter (Q) fields.

David J.

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Possibly misleading documentation of Template Patterns for Date/Time Formatting
Next
From: Terry Schmitt
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #16369: Segmentation Faults and Data Corruption withGenerated Columns