On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:08:26PM +0900, MauMau wrote:
> From: "Bruce Momjian"
> >On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:22:47PM +0900, MauMau wrote:
> >>So, my suggestion is to just add the following sentence right after
> >>the above one.
> >>
> >>The Postgres style is an exception: the output of the date
From: "Bruce Momjian"
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:22:47PM +0900, MauMau wrote:
So, my suggestion is to just add the following sentence right after
the above one.
The Postgres style is an exception: the output of the date type is
either MM-DD- (e.g. 12-17-1997) or DD-MM- (e.g. 17-12-1997
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:22:47PM +0900, MauMau wrote:
> I'm sorry I didn't respond for a long time. I've come up with a suggestion.
>
> The original reporter of this problem expected the output of the
> date type in 'Postgres,DMY' style to be "17 Dec 1997", when the
> output of the timestamp if
Hi, Bruce san,
From: "Bruce Momjian"
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 12:09:53PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Yes. I don't see any reason to change it, either, as nobody has
complained that it's actually bad. If you feel a compulsion to
change the docs, do that.
OK, seems 'Postgres' is a unique output fo
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 12:09:53PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Is this format so old that we can't fix this?
>
> Yes. I don't see any reason to change it, either, as nobody has
> complained that it's actually bad. If you feel a compulsion to
> change the docs, do that.
O
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Is this format so old that we can't fix this?
Yes. I don't see any reason to change it, either, as nobody has
complained that it's actually bad. If you feel a compulsion to
change the docs, do that.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Yes, you are correct, this is inconsistent. Let me look at writing a
> patch to fix this. Is this format so old that we can't fix this?
I think I would be more inclined to change the documentation than the behavior.
--
Robert Haas
Enterp
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 09:06:30PM +0900, MauMau wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The description of datestyle parameter does not seem to match the
> actual behavior. Is this a bug to be fixed? Which do you think
> should be corrected, the program or the manual?
>
>
> The manual says:
>
> DateStyle (strin
Hello,
The description of datestyle parameter does not seem to match the actual
behavior. Is this a bug to be fixed? Which do you think should be
corrected, the program or the manual?
The manual says:
DateStyle (string)
Sets the display format for date and time values, as well as the rule
