This patch allows you to use I as format specifier to get the
ISO year, the year correspondeing to the ISO week number (IW).
Kurt
Index: doc/src/sgml/func.sgml
===
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql-server/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml,
Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This patch allows you to use I as format specifier to get the
> ISO year, the year correspondeing to the ISO week number (IW).
The purpose of to_char() as I understand it is to be 100% Oracle
compatible, not to invent new features at random. Is this d
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 11:41:18AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This patch allows you to use I as format specifier to get the
> > ISO year, the year correspondeing to the ISO week number (IW).
>
> The purpose of to_char() as I understand it is to be 100%
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> I have no idea if this in Oracle or not. But it's something I
> needed, and other people in the past asked about it too.
It is in Oracle, but you aren't exactly on the spot. It should be
IYYY - 4 digits ('2003')
IYY - 3 digits ('003')
IY - 2 digits ('03')
I- 1 dig
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 06:47:41PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > I have no idea if this in Oracle or not. But it's something I
> > needed, and other people in the past asked about it too.
>
> It is in Oracle, but you aren't exactly on the spot. It should be
>
> IYYY -
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 06:47:41PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > I have no idea if this in Oracle or not. But it's something I
> > needed, and other people in the past asked about it too.
>
> It is in Oracle, but you aren't exactly on the spot. It should be
>
> IYYY -
Attached is my proposed patch for this problem, to be put in 7.4.1.
Please someone give it a quick check.
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Uh, no, because you can say something like
> >> revoke all on language plperlu from public;
> >> and e
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Attached is my proposed patch for this problem, to be put in 7.4.1.
> Please someone give it a quick check.
The aclchk change looks okay if that's the behavior you want, but I
wonder why you don't just make it raise error in both the GRANT and
REVOK
