Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> The only thing that I had suggested on occasion was that if nontrivial
> work were to be put into SET DATESTYLE, we might want to consider if a
> certain amount of "cleanup" could be done at the same time. For example,
> the particular date styles have somewhat unfortunate names, as does the
> "european" option. And the parameter could be separated into two. One
> doesn't have to agree with these suggestions, but without them the work is
> sufficiently complicated that no one has gotten around to it yet.
I think you were mainly concerned that we not define two interacting
GUC variables (ie, setting one could have side-effects on the other)?
I don't see any inherent reason that DATESTYLE couldn't be imported into
GUC as-is. The semantics might be uglier than you'd like, but why would
they be any worse than they are now?
regards, tom lane
