Re: [HACKERS] date_trunc problem in HEAD

2005-03-13 Thread Robert Creager
OK. I believe the following function provides the correct functionality. Agree/disagree? If it's good, I'll figure out how to convert this little monster to C... CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION date_trunc_week(timestamp without time zone) RETURNS timestamp without time zone AS ' DECLARE rea

Re: [HACKERS] date_trunc problem in HEAD

2005-03-13 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 12:48:00PM -0700, Robert Creager wrote: > When grilled further on (Sun, 13 Mar 2005 19:40:02 +0100), > Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> confessed: > > > > Attached is a patch against HEAD for your review. > > > > It has this comment in it: > >

Re: [HACKERS] date_trunc problem in HEAD

2005-03-13 Thread Robert Creager
When grilled further on (Sun, 13 Mar 2005 19:40:02 +0100), Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> confessed: > > Attached is a patch against HEAD for your review. > > It has this comment in it: >/* the new year cannot be greater than the >

Re: [HACKERS] date_trunc problem in HEAD

2005-03-13 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:12:32AM -0700, Robert Creager wrote: > > Hey All, > > I goofed with the patch I submitted last year for adding 'week' capability to > the date_trunc function. > > Attached is a patch against HEAD for your review. It has this comment in it:

[HACKERS] date_trunc problem in HEAD

2005-03-13 Thread Robert Creager
Hey All, I goofed with the patch I submitted last year for adding 'week' capability to the date_trunc function. Attached is a patch against HEAD for your review. Cheers, Rob -- 11:00:49 up 47 days, 16:17, 4 users, load average: 3.01, 2.37, 2.37 Linux 2.6.5-02 #8 SMP Mon Jul 12 21:34:44 MDT