Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I assume that the datestyle has to be set to YMD for this to work as
> outlined above, right, and that 97-01-01 will throw an error unless the
> datestyle is YMD.
Right, no more heuristics (other than assuming -MM-DD if the first
field is written wit
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I assume that the datestyle has to be set to YMD for this to work as
> > outlined above, right, and that 97-01-01 will throw an error unless the
> > datestyle is YMD.
>
> Right, no more heuristics (other than assuming -MM-DD if th
--On Monday, July 28, 2003 15:48:39 -0400 Bruce Momjian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
scott.marlowe wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Now, adding a YYMMDDD mode (not to be confused with MMDD) to
> > datestyle is a feature addition to m
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Now, adding a YYMMDDD mode (not to be confused with MMDD) to
> > datestyle is a feature addition to me. I am not sure if anyone wants
> > it, though.
>
> Well, we now saw one person besides me who wants it, so that's good
> enoug
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So this means that when you have YMD, that 03-01-01 is Jan 1, 2003?
That's the idea.
BTW, is the second version of Greg's patch on your unapplied-patches
page the latest one? I wasn't keeping track.
regards, tom lane
-
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So this means that when you have YMD, that 03-01-01 is Jan 1, 2003?
>
> That's the idea.
I assume that the datestyle has to be set to YMD for this to work as
outlined above, right, and that 97-01-01 will throw an error unless the
dat
scott.marlowe wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Now, adding a YYMMDDD mode (not to be confused with MMDD) to
> > > datestyle is a feature addition to me. I am not sure if anyone wants
> > > it, though.
> >
> > Well, we now saw
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Now, adding a YYMMDDD mode (not to be confused with MMDD) to
> > datestyle is a feature addition to me. I am not sure if anyone wants
> > it, though.
>
> Well, we now saw one person besides me who wants it,
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now, adding a YYMMDDD mode (not to be confused with MMDD) to
> datestyle is a feature addition to me. I am not sure if anyone wants
> it, though.
Well, we now saw one person besides me who wants it, so that's good
enough for me ;-). I'll take respo
Patrick Welche wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 04:13:12PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 15:02, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Does anyone use YY-MM-DD for date input?
> > >
> > > Right now, it only works mostly for pre-2000 dates because we can detect
> > > that 97-02-03 is a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As much as I would love to stay involved in this topic, I am leaving
for vacation tomorrow and my email will be erratic at best. Looking
forward to testing out 7.4 when I get back! :)
- --
Greg Sabino Mullane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 04:13:12PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 15:02, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Does anyone use YY-MM-DD for date input?
> >
> > Right now, it only works mostly for pre-2000 dates because we can detect
> > that 97-02-03 is a year, while we can not detect that
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-
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
uni
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It would be nice to specify the input and output formats independently.
>
> They are independent now.
>
> > I think we can sort of do that now, but it isn't clear. When format is
> > Postgres, US/European control whether month is fi
On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 18:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It would be nice to specify the input and output formats independently.
[snip]
> that I'm outvoted on that point). The point I'm trying to make is that
> we need to extend input DateStyle so that this appr
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It would be nice to specify the input and output formats independently.
They are independent now.
> I think we can sort of do that now, but it isn't clear. When format is
> Postgres, US/European control whether month is first in input and
> output. Wh
17 matches
Mail list logo
