Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> But we lose functionality that can't possibily be used in 2003 because
> 03-01-01 doesn't identify 03 as a year.
This argument is specious. You could equally well use it to justify
removing our support for dd-mm-yy and mm-dd-yy, because those aren't
unique either.
regards, tom lane