Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [INTERFACES] Access'97 and ODBC

From: "Jose' Soares Da Silva" <sferac(at)bo(dot)nettuno(dot)it>
To: "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
Cc: Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <tih+mail(at)hamartun(dot)priv(dot)no>, Postgres Hackers List <hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Access'97 and ODBC
Date: 1998-04-30 16:13:00
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.3.96.980430155515.680A-100000@proxy.bazzanese.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-interfaces
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:

	
> > > > I vote for changing default date format to ISO-8601 to reflect
> > > Hear!  Hear!  Good standards beat silly conventions any day!
> > Seems that you don't like conventions Tom, but you want
> > that all world use dates with American format.
> > Seems that you want impose one convention.
> > We're working with a database which name is PostgreSQL.
> > I suppose that you know what's mean the last 3 letters.
> 
> Uh, Jose', he was agreeing with you :))

I'm sorry Tom Ivar, my mistake (guilt of my poor english)

> 
> Anyway, imo the only issue is _when_ this kind of change should take
> place. My comment in the documentation did not promise that it would
> change in the next release,

Yes I know...

> only that it might change in a future
> release. btw, I don't think that the ISO date style is mandated by the
> SQL92 standard, but it does seem like a good idea, particularly as we
> approach y2k...

I think so, Tom. Here the syntax from...

(Second Informal Review Draft) ISO/IEC 9075:1992, Database
              Language SQL- July 30, 1992

5.3 <literal>
    <date literal> ::=
        DATE <date string>

    <date string> ::=
        <quote> <date value> <quote>

    <date value> ::=
        <years value> <minus sign> <months value> <minus sign> <days value>

example date syntax:    DATE '0001-01-01'
	                DATE '9999-12-31'

Ok, I know that keyword DATE before value is a silly and an useless
thing but YYYY-MM-DD format it's an intelligent thing.

> Of course, since we now have the PGDATESTYLE environment variable,
> usable by both the backend (at startup) and libpq (at connect time),
> perhaps a change in default date format is not something to worry about
> too much.
> 
> I haven't heard any negative comments (yet) about changing the default
> date format to ISO-8601 (yyyy-mm-dd). Does anyone have a strong feeling
> that this should _not_ happen for v6.4??
> 
> Speak up or it might happen ;)

Go for it Tom!                                              Jose'


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andreas ZeugswetterDate: 1998-04-30 16:33:26
Subject: AW: [HACKERS] Revised proposal for libpq and FE/BE protocol changes
Previous:From: Byron NikolaidisDate: 1998-04-30 16:10:45
Subject: Postgres Locking, Access'97 and ODBC

pgsql-interfaces by date

Next:From: Jose' Soares Da SilvaDate: 1998-04-30 17:43:37
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Access'97 and ODBC
Previous:From: Byron NikolaidisDate: 1998-04-30 16:10:45
Subject: Postgres Locking, Access'97 and ODBC

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group