Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: The IYYY mess again
From: Steve Atkins <steve@blighty.com>
In-Reply-To: <5888.1419865569@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 09:13:33 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <59DE6D33-8AE5-4355-BC1D-4911CD2EAD34@blighty.com>
References: <5888.1419865569@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: pgsql-docs@postgreSQL.org
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org


On Dec 29, 2014, at 7:06 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> In bug #12367
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20141229031218.8013.51171@wrigleys.p=
ostgresql.org
> we see yet another iteration of somebody trying to combine to_char's
> IYYY specifier with regular Gregorian MM/DD fields.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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".
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Objections, better ideas?

I've seen this problem a few times on IRC too. An explicit warning / cross
reference on IYYY that the user almost certainly wants YYYY instead might
be even better.

Cheers,
  Steve

--=20
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs