Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > But we lose functionality that can't possibily be used in 2003 because > > 03-01-01 doesn't identify 03 as a year. > > This argument is specious. You could equally well use it to justify > removing our support for dd-mm-yy and mm-dd-yy, because those aren't > unique either.
I must not be understanding you. Given our current feature set, removing the ability to specify YY-MM-DD when the year is greater than 31 just seems useless to me, and a cause of possible errors. To be specific, your complaint, I think, is that we don't want to lose the functionality that says 97-01-02 is from 1997. Now, adding a YYMMDDD mode (not to be confused with YYYYMMDD) to datestyle is a feature addition to me. I am not sure if anyone wants it, though. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
