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

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
To: Erik Wienhold <ewie(at)ewie(dot)name>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: 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 07:16:04
Message-ID: 408aa3cd-0085-41c3-855c-3d51a1bc55d3@eisentraut.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs

On 14.11.23 19:21, Erik Wienhold wrote:
> I did not say that occurrences of "ISO 8601" should be replaced with
> "RFC 3339". Just that the docs should have a cautionary note about the
> SQL standard using a subset of ISO 8601 and that Postgres does not
> implement (at the moment) all of its date formats.

The SQL standard does not refer to ISO 8601 to define date formats, it
has its own definitions. In fact, PostgreSQL implements more date
formats than the SQL standard requires.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Erik Wienhold 2023-11-15 08:37:57 Re: T is a mandatory date time separator in RFC3339 but documentation states differently
Previous Message Erik Wienhold 2023-11-14 18:21:15 Re: T is a mandatory date time separator in RFC3339 but documentation states differently