Re: BUG #3563: DATESTYLE feature suggestion

i apologize for bringing this up from over 2 years ago but i haven't
been able to find how this issue was resolved.

the following is from the ecmascript 5 specification at http://www.ecmascript.org/docs/tc39-2009-043.pdf
page 168:

> 15.9.1.15 Date Time String Format
> ECMAScript defines a string interchange format for date-times based
> upon a simplification of the ISO 8601
> Extended Format. The format is as follows: YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm:ss.sssZ

ecmascript 5 is the most recent specification for JavaScript and i
would think that having a DATESTYLE format to simplify
interoperability with JavaScript applications would be highly
desirable. simplifying interoperability could be achieved by either
providing a new format that matched this specific format or by
allowing a way to specify a custom DATESTYLE format. being able to
specify a custom DATESTYLE format would be preferred since it is the
more flexible option.

perhaps this is already possible but i just haven't managed to find
it. any help appreciated.

thanks,

ben...

On Aug 21, 2007, at 7:53 PM, Randolf Richardson wrote:

>
> The following bug has been logged online:
>
> Bug reference: 3563
> Logged by: Randolf Richardson
> Email address: randolf+postgresql(dot)org(at)inter-corporate(dot)com
> PostgreSQL version: 8.2.4
> Operating system: NetBSD 4 (beta), NetBSD 3.1, NetWare 6.5
> Description: DATESTYLE feature suggestion
> Details:
>
> After convincing clients and colleagues to switch from Oracle (and
> others)
> to PostgreSQL, an issue that comes up is the need to customize
> DATESTYLE.
> Because this isn't possible, the developers who were against the
> move to
> PostgreSQL make it political and recommended work-around solutions
> such as
> using to_char() or implementing a view for each table that contain
> TIMESTAMP[TZ]s is very difficult to argue with management because a
> lot of
> time is required to implement these items.
>
> In a future version, to solve this problem, an additional DATESTYLE
> option
> that uses the same rules as the to_char() function for date
> formatting would
> solve this problem. Here's an example:
>
> SET DATESTYLE = 'Custom YYYY-Mon-DD';
>
> This feature would not only resolve this particular political
> strife, but
> would also solve many other problems, including simplifying coding
> for raw
> SQL output serving as reports (e.g., users still get confused about
> dates
> like "2007-06-03," wondering if they refer to June 3rd, or March 6th).
>
> I'm hoping that this suggestion will be an easy one to implement.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> P.S.: I searched around for a "feature suggestions" page but
> couldn't find
> it (if one exists, it should be linked to from the "Report a Bug"
> page).