Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > But we lose functionality that can't possibily be used in 2003 because
> > 03-01-01 doesn't identify 03 as a year.
>
> This argument is specious. You could equally well use it to justify
> removing our support for dd-mm-yy and mm-dd-yy, because those aren't
> unique either.
I must not be understanding you. Given our current feature set,
removing the ability to specify YY-MM-DD when the year is greater than
31 just seems useless to me, and a cause of possible errors.
To be specific, your complaint, I think, is that we don't want to lose
the functionality that says 97-01-02 is from 1997.
Now, adding a YYMMDDD mode (not to be confused with YYYYMMDD) to
datestyle is a feature addition to me. I am not sure if anyone wants
it, though.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073