| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: extract vs date_part |
| Date: | 2001-02-16 20:18:58 |
| Message-ID: | 3A8D8B32.EE7C04E9@alumni.caltech.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> (Using ColId instead of datetime + IDENT gives reduce/reduce conflicts
> that I don't want to mess with now.)
> The date_part implementation is prepared for unknown field selectors, so
> this should be all safe. Comments?
Works for me. Since extract required explicit reserved words, I had just
implemented the ones specified in the SQL9x standard. Your extension
patch is a great idea, as long as others agree it can go into the beta
(afaict this is an extremely low risk fix).
- Thomas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-02-16 20:19:22 | age() function not to spec, date subtraction? |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-02-16 19:56:43 | extract vs date_part |