| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Sebastien FLAESCH <sf(at)4js(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: INTERVAL SECOND limited to 59 seconds? |
| Date: | 2009-06-10 02:59:19 |
| Message-ID: | 5401.1244602759@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> writes:
> It still accepts one odd input that 8.3 rejected:
> regression=# select interval '1 1' hour;
> Perhaps the additional patch below fixes that?
Hmm, not sure about that one. We decided a week or two back that we
don't want the thing discarding higher-order field values, and this
seems pretty close to that. As the code is set up (plus my patch)
I think it's the case that only the rightmost field specification
of the interval qualifier makes any difference for parsing the value;
the leftmost field doesn't really affect what we think the constant
means. That seems like a nice simple consistency property ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ron Mayer | 2009-06-10 03:31:47 | Re: INTERVAL SECOND limited to 59 seconds? |
| Previous Message | Ron Mayer | 2009-06-10 02:49:31 | Re: INTERVAL SECOND limited to 59 seconds? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-06-10 03:21:52 | Re: pgindent run coming |
| Previous Message | Ron Mayer | 2009-06-10 02:49:31 | Re: INTERVAL SECOND limited to 59 seconds? |