It seems I was wrong. Now T is mandatory in ISO8601 and from RFC3339 it seems this requirement is relaxed.
- https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9531524/in-an-iso-8601-date-is-the-t-character-mandatory#comment89287877_34006233 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601#Combined_date_and_time_representations - https://stackoverflow.com/questions/65000211/is-using-t-to-separate-date-and-time-inconsistent-with-rfc3339 On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 12:03 PM Roman Frołow <rof...@gmail.com> wrote: > So what should be changed? > > postgresql docs say that it is consistent with rfc3339 using space. > > Also look at this: > > > In addition, an uppercase "T" character MUST be used to separate date > and time > > https://validator.w3.org/feed/docs/error/InvalidRFC3339Date.html > > I would say that postgresql is not consistent with rfc3339, but rather > with ISO8601 which is very flexible in regard to separator etc. > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 11:23 AM Erik Wienhold <e...@ewie.name> wrote: > >> On 2023-11-11 23:45 +0100, PG Doc comments form wrote: >> > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: >> > >> > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/git.html >> > Description: >> > >> > >ISO 8601 specifies the use of uppercase letter T to separate the date >> and >> > time. PostgreSQL accepts that format on input, but on output it uses a >> space >> > rather than T, as shown above. This is for readability and for >> consistency >> > with RFC 3339 as well as some other database systems. >> >> This note probably refers to section 5.6. of RFC 3339 [1] which allows >> applications to choose space over "T". >> >> > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/datatype-datetime.html >> > >> > Short answer: T (or t as discouraged alternative). >> > >> > After reading on this as much as I could, it turns out the time >> separator >> > must be a T or t. What has made think this way is first of all this >> thread >> > in the GNU lists where F. Alexander Njemz contacted the authors of >> RFC3339 >> > Graham Klyne and Chris Newman asking if T is mandatory and got this >> response >> > from Mr. Klyne: >> > >> > > In short: "yes" >> > > >> > > Per section 5.5, the intent in this draft was to specify a timestamp >> > format using elements from and compatible with 8601, but eliminating as >> far >> > as reasonable any variations that could make timestamp data harder to >> > process. This includes making the 'T' mandatory in date+time values. >> > >> > Just for clarity's sake, this is stated in the section 5.5: >> > >> > > Simplicity is achieved by making most fields and punctuation >> mandatory. >> >> But the word "most" certainly leaves some wiggle room. >> >> > This clearly clashes with a non-mandatory T and strongly makes me think >> that >> > the this syntax in that problematic passage refers to ISO8601 and not >> > RFC3339. >> > >> > >> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/63783868/what-are-valid-date-time-separators-in-rfc3339-strings/63882162#63882162 >> >> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3339#section-5.6 >> >> -- >> Erik >> >
