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

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [INTERFACES] Access'97 and ODBC

From: darrenk(at)insightdist(dot)com (Darren King)
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [INTERFACES] Access'97 and ODBC
Date: 1998-04-30 13:17:53
Message-ID: 9804301317.AA69504@ceodev (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> 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, 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...
> 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 ;)

I'll cast my vote FOR it if it helps speed it along.

That format makes sorting/ordering a no-brainer.  Might not help inside
postgres, but for putting result sets out to a flat file for script
processing, you could then use the unix sort command.  Much easier...

Go for it, whenever.


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Gautam H ThakerDate: 1998-04-30 13:40:24
Subject: [Fwd: [QUESTIONS] an apparent error in answer from "##" (closest proximity)operator]
Previous:From: Thomas G. LockhartDate: 1998-04-30 13:08:17
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Access'97 and ODBC

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group