2011/12/6 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Ben Hockey <neonstalwart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> i know its been over a year without any activity on this thread but did
>>> anything ever come of this? i'd really like to be able to get dates to
>>> match the format specified for date time strings in ecmascript 5. a generic
>>> way to specify the format would be ideal if it can be done securely. has
>>> there been other threads discussing this more recently?
>> Not to my knowledge, though I don't read pgsql-general. I think this
>> is the sort of thing that really only gets done if someone cares
>> enough about it to settle down and put together a detailed design
>> proposal, get consensus, and write a patch. IOW, it's unlikely that
>> anyone else will do this for you, but you can certainly make a try at
>> doing it yourself, and get help from others along the way.
> TBH, I think that inventing a new datestyle setting "ECMA" would be a
> more appropriate investment of effort. Generic format strings sound
> like a nightmare. Maybe I've just been turned off by the
> to_date/to_char mess, but I'm very down on the idea of anything like
> that propagating into the main datetime I/O code.
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, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-12-06 20:25:11|
|Subject: Re: WIP: SP-GiST, Space-Partitioned GiST |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-12-06 20:15:55|
|Subject: Re: ecmascript 5 DATESTYLE |