From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | greg(at)turnstep(dot)com, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Datetime patch |
Date: | 2003-07-25 20:12:24 |
Message-ID: | 200307252012.h6PKCO918514@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
[ Moved to hackers.]
(The discussion is whether we should support dates of the format
yy-mm-dd. We already support yyyy-mm-dd, but we have code that would
see 97-01-01 and detect the first part was a year.)
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > I have never seen YY/MM/DD, only YYYY-MM-DD.
>
> You have apparently forgotten what was standard practice just a few
> years ago.
Well, seeing as it hasn't worked for a date in three years, I don't see
how anyone could be using it unless they are only entering dates
per-2000, which seems unlikely. It will be come useful again in 2032.
> > The huge problem is
> > deciding out how to decode 03-02-01. I think we have to require the
> > century for those.
>
> No, the entire point is to drive it off datestyle, *not* off the input
> value ranges.
If they supply a four-digit year, we assume yyyy-mm-dd, if not we follow
datestyle. I can see someone wanting yy-mm-dd, but then we need a _new_
setting to control that, because the detection code for a year being >
31 just doesn't work in 2003.
I see what you are saying, that using the four-digit leading as
specifying a year is arbitrary, but it does allow us to accept both ISO
and US/European dates cleanly. I guess the question is whether it is
worth allowing yy-mm-dd using a _new_ setting. I still think we will
need the 4-digit rule for ordinary users.
The driving thing here was consistency, so the same session didn't
accept 19-8-03 and 8-19-03 while other dates like 01-01-03 were
following datestyle. I don't see how the 4-digit rule actually is
inconsistent in that way.
> > If that is the only issue, I can ask on general, but I doubt someone is
> > going to pipe up.
>
> I really dislike the idea that we are going to legislate this behavior
> in a three-person discussion on -patches. The people who will be
> screaming about it don't read -patches.
I would be shocked to find someone screaming. I have asked on general,
and if someone come up with a valid use for it, we can adjust it, even
during beta. We can't tighten during beta, but we can loosen.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2003-07-25 20:47:44 | Re: v7.3.4 bundled ... |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-07-25 19:51:40 | Re: Datetime patch |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-07-25 21:48:42 | Re: Minor pager corrections in print.c and help.c (psql) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-07-25 19:51:40 | Re: Datetime patch |