From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | ben hockey <neonstalwart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mike Fowler <mike(at)mlfowler(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: ecmascript 5 DATESTYLE |
Date: | 2011-12-06 20:58:41 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRAeMbVSr=947B5bpufVp4xim3snmPVT4K6OCrrgMyLCUw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2011/12/6 ben hockey <neonstalwart(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>
> On 12/6/2011 3:20 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>
>>
>> I am for ECMA datestyle
>>
>> it is there but just is not public, if I remember well
>>
>> Theoretically some custom output/input transform routine can be very
>> interesting - for domains, for boolean type - but on second hand - the
>> usage of this feature is minimal and there is risk for less advanced
>> users - so ECMA datestyle is very adequate solution.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Pavel
>>
> i don't particularly need anything other than ECMA datestyle - i was just
> under the impression that a more generic solution was preferred. so, ECMA
> is enough to stop me from making any more noise about this.
a general solution is not simple - there is possible a SQL injection
and therefore result must be escaped, and it means some overhead
else - is very common a good style to use functions to_char, to_date
or to_timestamp functions. Then your application will be more robust.
Using default datestyle is user friendly technique, but it can be
source of some issues - is better don't use it for large and complex
application.
Regards
Pavel
>
> pavel, is there a way i can use this currently? if not, would it take much
> effort to make this public?
>
> thanks,
>
> ben...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-12-06 21:02:31 | Re: RangeVarGetRelid() |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2011-12-06 20:53:05 | Re: ecmascript 5 DATESTYLE |