Re: ISO8601 nitpicking

On fre, 2012-02-24 at 10:40 -0800, Daniel Farina wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> > On tor, 2012-02-23 at 23:41 -0800, Daniel Farina wrote:
> >> As it turns out, evidence would suggests that the "ISO" output in
> >> Postgres isn't, unless there's an ISO standard for date and time that
> >> is referring to other than 8601.
> >
> > Yes, ISO 9075, the SQL standard. This particular issue has been
> > discussed many times; see the archives.
> >
>
> I did try searching, but this did not come up quickly, except as "the
> T is not necessary," as is commonly repeated on the web.

This thread for example:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/EC26F5CE-9F3B-40C9-BF23-F0C2B96E388C@gmail.com

> The manual is misleading to me on this admittedly very fine point:

Yes, that should probably be cleaned up. I repeat my contribution to
the above thread:

So we'd have a setting called "ECMA" that's really ISO, and a
setting called "ISO" that's really SQL, and a setting called
"SQL" that's really Postgres, and a setting called "Postgres"
that's also Postgres but different.

Maybe we should just rename the setings to A, B, C, and D.