Re: BUG #1517: SQL interval syntax is accepted by the parser,

From: Roy Badami <roy(at)gnomon(dot)org(dot)uk>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Roy Badami <roy(at)gnomon(dot)org(dot)uk>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #1517: SQL interval syntax is accepted by the parser,
Date: 2005-03-19 16:55:05
Message-ID: 16956.22889.962007.979933@giles.gnomon.org.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Tom> Feel like hacking the code?

Hmm, in principle I might take a look some time; in reality it's
unlikely I'll have time any time soon...

There are some design issues involved, though. If you have the type
modifier, do you isnist on SQL syntax in the string?

ie do you accept

interval '1 day 1 hour' day to second

Personally I think it would be a bad idea to allow hybrid SQL/postgres
syntax like this.

IMHO, you should either write

interval '1 day 1 hour'

(postgres style), or

interval '1 1:00:00' day to second

(SQL style.)

Hmm, except writing the above has just raised another question. Is
that what the postgres-ism really means (I think it does) or does it
mean

interval '1 1' day to hour

Once you start distinguishing your interval types, does this become
important? Actually, I can't immediately see a case where it would
matter, but that doesn't mean there isn't one...

-roy

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-03-19 18:08:06 Re: BUG #1517: SQL interval syntax is accepted by the parser,
Previous Message Stephan Szabo 2005-03-19 16:53:57 Re: BUG #1518: Conversions to (undocumented) SQL year-month