Brendan Jurd writes:
> Short version: I think using CC and AD/BC in combination with week
> dates would be downright weird, but I don't object to the patch.
I agree it's pretty weird, but I can't immediately see any reason that
it shouldn't (be allowed to) work. It would only get interesting if
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 4:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Whilst poking at bug #4702 I noticed that PG CVS HEAD rejects use of
> AD/BC notation, as well as CC (separate century) fields, in combination
> with ISO-style day numbers. I don't see the point of this. It's
> historically inaccurate, no doubt,
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 01:39:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Whilst poking at bug #4702 I noticed that PG CVS HEAD rejects use of
> AD/BC notation, as well as CC (separate century) fields, in
> combination with ISO-style day numbers. I don't see the point of
> this. It's historically inaccurate, n
Whilst poking at bug #4702 I noticed that PG CVS HEAD rejects use of
AD/BC notation, as well as CC (separate century) fields, in combination
with ISO-style day numbers. I don't see the point of this. It's
historically inaccurate, no doubt, but so is use of Gregorian counting.
So I suggest the att
