On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 06:42:46PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by that. We receive a pg_tm struct which can't
> contain more than 12 in tm_mon right? And actually for intervals it will
> reduce "12 months" to "1 year 0 month", so to_char previously didn't report
> anything for 12 months either.
I did not take the time to look in details, but for reference I just
imagined that a formula like this one would give pretty much the
position in rm_months_upper:
M_PER_Y - ((tm_mon % M_PER_Y) + M_PER_Y) % M_PER_Y
> Hearing no other opinion I went with -1 -> december and so on in attached v2.
> I also fixed the "[-]12 months" case and updated the regression tests. Given
> the extra code needed to deduce the correct array position I factorized DCH_RM
> and DCH_rm.
Yep. The regression tests show what I would expect. I'll check in
details later.
--
Michael
