time dates - Search results
Mailing lists >> pgsql-docs >> Thread
2023-11-20 13:30:16 | Re: T is a mandatory date time separator in RFC3339 but documentation states differently (Erik Wienhold)
On 2023-11-20 08:14 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: I wouldn't do that
Mailing lists >> pgsql-docs >> Thread
2023-11-20 07:14:50 | Re: T is a mandatory date time separator in RFC3339 but documentation states differently (Peter Eisentraut)
On 19.11.23 21:34, Erik Wienhold wrote: Maybe we should change the references to the
Mailing lists >> pgsql-docs >> Thread
2023-11-19 20:34:28 | Re: T is a mandatory date time separator in RFC3339 but documentation states differently (Erik Wienhold)
date format that Postgres implements in addition to the standard SQL formats. Also change time
Mailing lists >> pgsql-docs >> Thread
2023-11-15 14:46:43 | Re: T is a mandatory date time separator in RFC3339 but documentation states differently (Tom Lane)
Erik Wienhold
Mailing lists >> pgsql-docs >> Thread
2023-11-15 12:47:45 | Re: T is a mandatory date time separator in RFC3339 but documentation states differently (Erik Wienhold)
On 2023-11-15 12:53 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: Thanks, now I see. SQL
Mailing lists >> pgsql-docs >> Thread
2023-11-15 11:53:33 | Re: T is a mandatory date time separator in RFC3339 but documentation states differently (Peter Eisentraut)
On 15.11.23 09:37, Erik Wienhold wrote: Exactly, it just imports the definitions of those
Mailing lists >> pgsql-docs >> Thread
2023-11-15 08:37:57 | Re: T is a mandatory date time separator in RFC3339 but documentation states differently (Erik Wienhold)
On 2023-11-15 08:16 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: Really? Then what does the
Mailing lists >> pgsql-docs >> Thread
2023-11-15 07:16:04 | Re: T is a mandatory date time separator in RFC3339 but documentation states differently (Peter Eisentraut)
On 14.11.23 19:21, Erik Wienhold wrote: The SQL standard does not refer to ISO
Mailing lists >> pgsql-docs >> Thread
2023-11-14 18:21:15 | Re: T is a mandatory date time separator in RFC3339 but documentation states differently (Erik Wienhold)
On 2023-11-13 17:23 +0100, Tom Lane wrote: I did not say that
Mailing lists >> pgsql-docs >> Thread
2023-11-13 16:23:16 | Re: T is a mandatory date time separator in RFC3339 but documentation states differently (Tom Lane)
Erik Wienhold
Mailing lists >> pgsql-docs >> Thread
2023-11-13 14:29:35 | Re: T is a mandatory date time separator in RFC3339 but documentation states differently (Erik Wienhold)
On 2023-11-13 15:24 +0100, Erik Wienhold wrote: Forgot this fine visualization of
Mailing lists >> pgsql-docs >> Thread
2023-11-13 14:24:33 | Re: T is a mandatory date time separator in RFC3339 but documentation states differently (Erik Wienhold)
On 2023-11-13 12:27 +0100, Roman Frołow wrote: Right. RFC 3339 is from
Mailing lists >> pgsql-docs >> Thread
2023-11-13 11:27:22 | Re: T is a mandatory date time separator in RFC3339 but documentation states differently (Roman Frołow)
It seems I was wrong. Now T is mandatory in ISO8601 and from RFC3339 it
Mailing lists >> pgsql-docs >> Thread
2023-11-13 11:03:09 | Re: T is a mandatory date time separator in RFC3339 but documentation states differently (Roman Frołow)
So what should be changed? postgresql docs say that it is consistent with rfc3339 using
Mailing lists >> pgsql-docs >> Thread
2023-11-13 10:23:22 | Re: T is a mandatory date time separator in RFC3339 but documentation states differently (Erik Wienhold)
On 2023-11-11 23:45 +0100, PG Doc comments form wrote: This note probably