| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Roy Badami <roy(at)gnomon(dot)org(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #1517: SQL interval syntax is accepted by the parser, |
| Date: | 2005-03-23 23:32:38 |
| Message-ID: | 15680.1111620758@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Roy Badami <roy(at)gnomon(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> Tom> In particular we have to consider the behavior of the input
> Tom> and output routines for cases like COPY.
> Hmm, but COPY is non-standard, so I'd be happy that it insisted on
> postgres interval syntax.
It's not different from
INSERT INTO foo VALUES('1 year 1 month');
Nothing nonstandard about that that I can see.
> ANSI interval syntax is confusing in this
> context, precisely because there is nowhere to actually put an
> 'interval qualifier' in the literals.
Yes. The ISO design for the datatype is pretty brain-dead if you ask
me --- the basic meaning of a data literal shouldn't be so dependent
on context. Still, it's there, and we should make some effort towards
supporting all but the really awfulest parts of it ;-)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Roy Badami | 2005-03-23 23:42:36 | Re: BUG #1517: SQL interval syntax is accepted by the parser, |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2005-03-23 23:28:28 | Re: BUG #1517: SQL interval syntax is accepted by the parser, |