Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 17:41:30 -0500
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: The IYYY mess again
Message-ID: <20141229224130.GC5788@momjian.us>
References: <5888.1419865569@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5888.1419865569@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 10:06:09AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> In bug #12367
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20141229031218.8013.51171@wrigleys.postgresql.org
> we see yet another iteration of somebody trying to combine to_char's
> IYYY specifier with regular Gregorian MM/DD fields.
> 
> It occurs to me that this is largely our own fault, because the fine
> manual just defines IYYY as "ISO year".  I'm sure the typical newbie
> thought process is "that sounds like a standard year, I'll use that".
> There is a warning against combining IYYY with MM/DD, but it's buried
> in trivia far down the page.
> 
> I did a bit of googling and came across
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_week_date
> in which this construct is called an "ISO week-numbering year".
> 
> Not having a copy of ISO 8601, I'm not sure if that's the standard's
> terminology; but ISTM that if we consistently referred to the Ixxx
> format specifiers as "ISO week-numbering foo" then this type of error
> might become a little less attractive.
> 
> Objections, better ideas?

+1 for saying "ISO week-numbering year".

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + Everyone has their own god. +


-- 
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs