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 19:09:35 |
Message-ID: | 48CABE6F.6060009@cheapcomplexdevices.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> writes:
>> ... ISO 8601 intervals ...
>
> On the output side, seems like a GUC variable
> is the standard precedent here. I'd still vote against overloading
> DateStyle --- it does too much already --- but a separate variable for
> interval style wouldn't bother me. In fact, given that we are now
> somewhat SQL-compliant on interval input, a GUC that selected
> PG traditional, SQL-standard, or ISO 8601 interval output format seems
> like it could be a good idea.
Is it OK that this seems to me it wouldn't be backward compatible
with the current interval_out that looks to me to be using
the DateStyle GUC?
I supposed it could be made backward compatible if the new
IntervalStyle GUC defaulted to a value of "guess_from_datestyle",
but I fear an option like that might add rather than remove
confusion.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-09-12 19:31:44 | Re: [HACKERS] Infrastructure changes for recovery |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-09-12 18:56:06 | Re: [HACKERS] Infrastructure changes for recovery |