Re: Proposed patch: make SQL interval-literal syntax work per spec

From: Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposed patch: make SQL interval-literal syntax work per spec
Date: 2008-09-12 00:08:29
Message-ID: 48C9B2FD.8090607@cheapcomplexdevices.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> The other problem is that the SQL spec clearly defines an interval
> literal syntax, and it's not this ISO thing. So even without backward
> compatibility issues, 8601-only doesn't seem like it would fly.
>

Oh. I wasn't proposing 8601-only. Just the one-character
shorthands like '1Y1M'::interval that postgresql interprets
as "1 year one minute". No standard specifies anything close
to that; and any similar standards ask to interpret that M as
months instead of minutes.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-09-12 00:32:06 Re: Proposed patch: make SQL interval-literal syntax work per spec
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-09-12 00:05:00 Re: Proposed patch: make SQL interval-literal syntax work per spec