Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1so7Hh-008Pw3-Lc for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2024 20:16:22 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1so7Hh-001aQE-Ap for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2024 20:16:21 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1so7Hh-001aOt-1C for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2024 20:16:21 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1so7Hd-000WZ2-A2 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2024 20:16:20 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 48AKGCur3654687; Tue, 10 Sep 2024 16:16:12 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Peter Eisentraut cc: "David E. Wheeler" , jian he , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: Document DateStyle effect on jsonpath string() In-reply-to: References: <56955B33-6959-4FDA-A459-F00363ECDFEE@justatheory.com> <4D874C72-8939-4083-8336-AB114D9E29AD@justatheory.com> <3541398.1725994308@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut message dated "Tue, 10 Sep 2024 22:10:47 +0200" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3654685.1725999372.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 16:16:12 -0400 Message-ID: <3654686.1725999372@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Peter Eisentraut writes: > These JSON path functions are specified by the SQL standard, so they > shouldn't depend on PostgreSQL-specific settings. At least in new > functionality we should avoid that, no? Hmm ... but does the standard precisely define the output format? Since these conversions are built on our own timestamp I/O code, I rather imagine there is quite a lot of behavior there that's not to be found in the standard. That doesn't really trouble me as long as the spec's behavior is a subset of it (i.e., reachable as long as you've got the right parameter settings). regards, tom lane