Thread: Re: [INTERFACES] Access'97 and ODBC

Re: [INTERFACES] Access'97 and ODBC

From
"Thomas G. Lockhart"
Date:
> > > 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 :))

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, 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...

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 ;)

                           - Tom

Re: [INTERFACES] Access'97 and ODBC

From
"Jose' Soares Da Silva"
Date:
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'