X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 089D3D1DFFE for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:57:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27265-04 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:57:48 -0400 (AST) Received: from anchor-post-37.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-36.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.86]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9C9DD1DF93 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:57:43 -0400 (AST) Received: from mwynhau.demon.co.uk ([193.237.186.96] helo=mainbox.archonet.com) by anchor-post-37.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AuD2B-0003Pj-0b; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:57:48 +0000 Received: by mainbox.archonet.com (Postfix, from userid 529) id 1DFFC163B3; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:57:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from client17.archonet.com (client17.archonet.com [192.168.1.17]) by mainbox.archonet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0924415951; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:57:45 +0000 (GMT) From: Richard Huxton To: Silke Trissl , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: date format in 7.4 Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:57:45 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <40362082.7070900@informatik.hu-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <40362082.7070900@informatik.hu-berlin.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200402201557.45008.dev@archonet.com> X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=0.15.3 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200402/310 X-Sequence-Number: 17000 On Friday 20 February 2004 14:58, Silke Trissl wrote: > Hi, > > I have an application where users can enter the date via a web interface. > > Recently I upgrated my PostgreSQL version from 7.3 to 7.4.1. > > On 7.3 I run several tests about the format of the date and found, > that Postgres accepts almost everything. Today I found out, that 7.4.1 > only accepts dates in the format mm-dd-yy, although the documentation > still states the following > 5. > Otherwise the date field ordering is assumed to follow the > DateStyle setting: mm-dd-yy, dd-mm-yy, or yy-mm-dd. Throw an error if a > month or day field is found to be out of range. I think what happened is that it will now *only* accept the format specified by your datestyle setting. Previously, as you say, it would have a guess at almost anything (and sometimes get it wrong). -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd