From: | "Shridhar Daithankar<shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Fwd: Re: [GENERAL] Extracting time from timestamp |
Date: | 2003-03-21 07:11:21 |
Message-ID: | 200303211241.21714.shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Friday 21 Mar 2003 12:25 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Shridhar Daithankar<shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>"
<shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> writes:
> > And What's so holy about "" if it is a function?
>
> The problem is that TIME(n) is a datatype name, not a function call,
> according to the SQL spec. Likewise for TIMESTAMP(n), INTERVAL(n),
> NUMERIC(m,n), and maybe one or two other special cases I've forgotten.
>
> The SQL spec's love of special-purpose syntaxes is one of its worst
> features IMHO ...
In this case, I would vote for overload as SQL extension in postgresql if
people feel it is feasible and/or sensible..
Shridhar
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vadim Mikheev | 2003-03-21 07:35:52 | Re: Nested transactions: low level stuff |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-03-21 06:55:16 | Re: Fwd: Re: [GENERAL] Extracting time from timestamp |