Re: T is a mandatory date time separator in RFC3339 but documentation states differently

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Erik Wienhold <ewie(at)ewie(dot)name>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Roman Frołow <rofrol(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: T is a mandatory date time separator in RFC3339 but documentation states differently
Date: 2023-11-15 14:46:43
Message-ID: 2657881.1700059603@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs

Erik Wienhold <ewie(at)ewie(dot)name> writes:
> On 2023-11-15 12:53 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I think we should reframe "ISO" to mean "ISO 9075" and remove all claims of
>> alignment with ISO 8601 and RFC 3339.

> Agree. So just list the example inputs without any reference to a
> particular standard, except for ISO 9075 to show that Postgres is
> SQL-standard-compliant?

I think that would remove useful context without actually improving
anything. (The datetime input code would be far simpler if it
meant only to read the exact format mentioned in the SQL spec.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message PG Doc comments form 2023-11-15 17:38:32 Additional Notes
Previous Message Erik Wienhold 2023-11-15 12:47:45 Re: T is a mandatory date time separator in RFC3339 but documentation states differently