From: | Karsten Hilbert <Karsten(dot)Hilbert(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL-general <pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Using YY-MM-DD date input |
Date: | 2003-07-25 22:06:37 |
Message-ID: | 20030726000637.A619@hermes.hilbert.loc |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> > 2. If first field is larger than 31, assume format is yy-mm-dd.
> > (I'm not totally wedded to this, since it could be argued to be
> > allowing the input values to determine the interpretation, which
Well, just give people the choice by:
set date_input_heuristics to true;
the default being "false", perhaps.
> > is exactly the kind of heuristic that people objected to in the
> > dd/mm vs mm/dd discussion last month. It seems reasonable to me,
> > but it could be removed without affecting the rest of this proposal.)
I think it makes a lot of sense if combined with a switch
"Yes, I want heuristics".
> I am not excited about this, though you could say it is an extension of
> the 4-digit rule. However, I don't like that 30-03-03 is in 2003 and
> 32-03-03 is in the year 32AD. That seems error-prone to me. :-)
Well, but that's what the input means. Or, to be more precise,
that is what the "32-03-03" means. Either it is a data input
error (date_input_heuristics is false and input style is not
YMD) or it is 32AD (input style YMD and heuristics off OR
heuristics on and un-ambigous year field detected). Of course,
for ambigous data even heuristics==true should have to revert
back to strict checking and signal ambiguity if
non-resolvable.
Just my thoughts,
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Maksim Likharev | 2003-07-25 22:28:44 | Wacky query plan, why? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-07-25 21:42:51 | Re: Inherits tables and current CVS |