On fre, 2012-02-24 at 10:40 -0800, Daniel Farina wrote: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > > On tor, 2012-02-23 at 23:41 -0800, Daniel Farina wrote: > >> As it turns out, evidence would suggests that the "ISO" output in > >> Postgres isn't, unless there's an ISO standard for date and time that > >> is referring to other than 8601. > > > > Yes, ISO 9075, the SQL standard. This particular issue has been > > discussed many times; see the archives. > > > > I did try searching, but this did not come up quickly, except as "the > T is not necessary," as is commonly repeated on the web.
This thread for example: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/ec26f5ce-9f3b-40c9-bf23-f0c2b96e3...@gmail.com > The manual is misleading to me on this admittedly very fine point: Yes, that should probably be cleaned up. I repeat my contribution to the above thread: So we'd have a setting called "ECMA" that's really ISO, and a setting called "ISO" that's really SQL, and a setting called "SQL" that's really Postgres, and a setting called "Postgres" that's also Postgres but different. Maybe we should just rename the setings to A, B, C, and D. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
