From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Postgres Hackers List <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Date/time types: big changeu |
Date: | 2000-02-17 06:14:23 |
Message-ID: | 38AB91BF.7510F467@alumni.caltech.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> >> Also, I've changed the default date style to "ISO" (not just in
> >> time for Y2K, but we'll be ready for "Y3K").
> > I think we need a consensus on this. I think this may be a problem for
> > some people. Comments?
> Good point. Perhaps there should be a way to select the default date
> style at configure or initdb time. I don't mind if the "default default"
> is ISO, but if I had apps that were dependent on the old default setting
> I'd sure be annoyed by this change...
I've been talking about this for quite some time, but there *really*
is no excuse to not go to the ISO date/time standard. Every other date
style is prone to misinterpretation, and the ISO standard is commonly
used in other instances where reliable date reporting is needed.
I've waited until a major rev to do this, and the groundwork has been
there for a year or two. There are some good summaries of the issues
on the web.
But, I'd have no objection to a configure or initdb option; I *would*
suggest that the old default (and it is the default mostly because
original Postgres95 had no other styles implemented) is a relatively
poor choice, and that ISO should be the default choice in the absence
of an explicit configure or initdb switch.
- Thomas
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
South Pasadena, California
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chris Bitmead | 2000-02-17 06:28:13 | Re: [HACKERS] libpq |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-02-17 06:12:14 | Re: [HACKERS] Date/time types: big changeu |