From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Ricardo Malafaia" <rmalafaia(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: polite request about syntax |
Date: | 2006-09-15 16:02:44 |
Message-ID: | 2163.1158336164@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Ricardo Malafaia" <rmalafaia(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> my complaint is that, like i said, "timestamp with time zone" is no
> good substitute for a simple "datetime". Here, someone suggested a
> CREATE DOMAIN to create an alias for it. Why isn't it provided there
> out-of-the-box by default? So you have the SQL standard timestamp and
> the industry standard datetime.
In which part of the industry is "datetime" industry standard? Last
I heard, the SQL spec was the industry standard.
> and, while $$ is a whole lot better than '', why do we really need
> these? Why not a normal, simple, begin end block or {}?
Doesn't work real well for arbitrary PL languages: you are effectively
assuming that the main SQL parser can lex every language anyone might
want to write a PL with. I think I need stray no further than plperl
to provide a counterexample: should the SQL parser be expected to
realize that qq/end/ does not represent a matching "end"?
> and Tom, i don't really want a GUI:
No, but it sounds like your co-workers do.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-09-15 16:04:13 | Re: New version of money type |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-09-15 15:58:00 | Re: polite request about syntax |