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

From wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Re: TO_CHAR()
Date
Msg-id m11X56P-0003kLC@orion.SAPserv.Hamburg.dsh.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Re: TO_CHAR()  (Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>)
List pgsql-hackers
> > discussion join you (Thomas) and me only, but others probably needn't
> > TO_CHAR, TO_NUMBER, TO_DATE) ..?
>
> People have requested to_char(), or at least inquired about it, though
> of course there are always ways to work around not having it. After
> all, it *is* non-standard ;) But we already have some Oracle
> compatibility functions, and a few more won't hurt.
>
> There are two possibilities:
>
> 1) we incorporate it into the main tree
> 2) we distribute it as a contrib package

    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().


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#========================================= wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] are subtransactions not nestable?
Next
From: Roberto Cornacchia
Date:
Subject: attribute distinct values estimate