From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: to_char(interval) --- done? |
Date: | 2003-03-25 17:28:09 |
Message-ID: | 200303250928.09437.josh@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Karel,
> If I see this I must agree with Peter that to_char() is something
> other than "interval" to "interval-as-string" convertor. The current
> code use date/time as complex of date/time information _based_ on
> calendar practice --
> The other words: current to_char(interval) is interval to calendar
> date/time convertor.
Currently, yes. The reason why I'm advocating for a change is:
1) I can't imagine of what use the current behavior could possibly be. Is
there anyone at all using the current output of to_char(interval)?
2) to_char() is also used for converting numeric values to strings. It is
not in some way tied to date/time from a schema perspective, although it may
be codewise.
> I think we can do with the current to_char(interval):
>
> a) maintain it as "interval" to "calendar date/time string" convertor,
> b) if nobody wants to use it as a) we can delete it from sources
> and don't waste our time with it and use our time to real
> "interval" convertor.
This sounds reasonable to me. I'll even do a survey on the SQL list to see if
anyone there is using the current behavior.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2003-03-25 17:51:54 | Re: Persistent variables between cross-calls in C functions |
Previous Message | Fabio Furia Silva | 2003-03-25 16:12:00 | Persistent variables between cross-calls in C functions |