| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org, jeremy(at)horizonlive(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Problems with avg on interval data type |
| Date: | 2001-05-19 01:14:21 |
| Message-ID: | 27697.990234861@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
>> I suggest that the current code is more correct than you think ;-).
>> ISTM it is a good idea to require a units field, or at least some
>> punctuation giving a clue about units --- for example I do not object to
>> '08:00' being interpreted as hours and minutes. But I would be inclined
>> to reject all four of the forms '+8', '-8', '8.0', and '8' as ambiguous.
>> Is there something in the SQL spec that requires us to accept them?
> Single-field signed integers (and unsigned integers?) must be acceptable
> for a time zone specification (pretty sure this is covered in the SQL
> spec).
But surely there is other context cuing you that the number is a
timezone? In any case, you weren't proposing that interval_in
should accept '8' as a timezone ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2001-05-19 06:21:18 | Re: Problems with avg on interval data type |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-05-19 00:55:12 | Re: Re: Problems with avg on interval data type |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Larry Rosenman | 2001-05-19 01:22:02 | Interesting question |
| Previous Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2001-05-19 01:10:10 | RE: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem |