| From: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)alcove(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chuck McDevitt <cmcdevitt(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Why is this allowed? |
| Date: | 2007-03-11 01:58:10 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.58.0703111255460.21640@linuxworld.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, Chuck McDevitt wrote:
> Ok...
>
> Just to be clear, the ISO SQL spec says that INTERVAL '1' DAY is the
> correct way to specify a one-day interval.
> That's why it is surprising that PostgreSQL treats it differently, with
> no error or warning.
>
> The PostgreSQL syntax INTERVAL '1 DAY' is non-standard.
>
> Is fixing this on the TODO list?
Yes: Add ISO INTERVAL handling
There's detail there about the nature of support required. Personally, I
think the syntax is awful. I don't understand why intervals are handled so
differently in the spec as compared to other data types. This syntax is
well supported by Oracle and DB2 though. I guess it should be completed in
postgres.
Thanks,
Gavin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2007-03-11 04:57:32 | Re: Race condition in pg_database_size() |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-11 01:53:11 | Re: Why is this allowed? |