On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:
> > > > I vote for changing default date format to ISO-8601 to reflect
> > > Hear! Hear! Good standards beat silly conventions any day!
> > Seems that you don't like conventions Tom, but you want
> > that all world use dates with American format.
> > Seems that you want impose one convention.
> > We're working with a database which name is PostgreSQL.
> > I suppose that you know what's mean the last 3 letters.
>
> Uh, Jose', he was agreeing with you :))
I'm sorry Tom Ivar, my mistake (guilt of my poor english)
>
> Anyway, imo the only issue is _when_ this kind of change should take
> place. My comment in the documentation did not promise that it would
> change in the next release,
Yes I know...
> only that it might change in a future
> release. btw, I don't think that the ISO date style is mandated by the
> SQL92 standard, but it does seem like a good idea, particularly as we
> approach y2k...
I think so, Tom. Here the syntax from...
(Second Informal Review Draft) ISO/IEC 9075:1992, Database
Language SQL- July 30, 1992
5.3 <literal>
<date literal> ::=
DATE <date string>
<date string> ::=
<quote> <date value> <quote>
<date value> ::=
<years value> <minus sign> <months value> <minus sign> <days value>
example date syntax: DATE '0001-01-01'
DATE '9999-12-31'
Ok, I know that keyword DATE before value is a silly and an useless
thing but YYYY-MM-DD format it's an intelligent thing.
> Of course, since we now have the PGDATESTYLE environment variable,
> usable by both the backend (at startup) and libpq (at connect time),
> perhaps a change in default date format is not something to worry about
> too much.
>
> I haven't heard any negative comments (yet) about changing the default
> date format to ISO-8601 (yyyy-mm-dd). Does anyone have a strong feeling
> that this should _not_ happen for v6.4??
>
> Speak up or it might happen ;)
Go for it Tom! Jose'
