Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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

From: Roy Badami <roy(at)gnomon(dot)org(dot)uk>
To: Roy Badami <roy(at)gnomon(dot)org(dot)uk>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,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 20:46:43
Message-ID: 16956.36787.302865.320029@giles.gnomon.org.uk (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Similary the undocumented postgresism of interpreting

	 INTERVAL '1:02'

as 1 hour 2 minutes is consistent with the ANSI

         INTERVAL '1:02' HOUR TO MINUTE

but not with the ANSI

	 INTERVAL '1:02' MINUTE TO SECOND

which of course means 1 minute 2 seconds.

The fact is that ANSI interval syntax is very different from postgres
interval syntax.  In ANSI interval syntax the literal string can only
be interpreted in the context of the interval type; in postgres
interval syntax the literal string has a well defined meaning in and
of itself, and no interval type is explicitly declared.

So I think I'm back to where I started.  Attempting to define
semantics for a hybrid format, where you have an ANSI interval type
but the literal string formatted in postgres interval format is
unnecessarity confusing and complicated.

	      -roy

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-03-19 21:03:22
Subject: Re: BUG #1517: SQL interval syntax is accepted by the parser,
Previous:From: Roy BadamiDate: 2005-03-19 19:26:37
Subject: Re: BUG #1517: SQL interval syntax is accepted by the parser,

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group