| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Thomas F(dot) O'Connell" <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: EXTRACT Clarification |
| Date: | 2004-09-29 16:09:02 |
| Message-ID: | 29855.1096474142@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-general |
"Thomas F. O'Connell" <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com> writes:
> That seems reasonable, too, although I was interested to learn that
> this (and a few other expressions) weren't actually functions.
They are functions ... but not from the point of view of the grammar,
which has special productions for them to cope with SQL's whimsical
syntax requirements.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas F.O'Connell | 2004-09-29 22:46:39 | Re: EXTRACT Clarification |
| Previous Message | Thomas F.O'Connell | 2004-09-29 15:42:26 | Re: EXTRACT Clarification |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Net Virtual Mailing Lists | 2004-09-29 16:10:35 | Re: Postgres inherited table, some questions... |
| Previous Message | Thomas F.O'Connell | 2004-09-29 15:42:26 | Re: EXTRACT Clarification |