Re: age() function documentation

> ISTM that this is more a result of
> a) timestamp subtraction not implemented per spec

Maybe. But it is implemented consistantly, and is more functional and
capable than the brain-damaged SQL9x spec (c.f. Date and Darwen) asks.

> b) date substraction not implemented at all (it does date - integer)

No, and changing what it *does* do has ramifications.

> c) implicit type conversions running wild

No.

> d) intervals not implemented per spec

? Why would you say this?

> (spec == SQL). Lots of fun projects here... ;-)

SQL == foolishness, sometimes. Especially when it comes to date/time
definitions and arithmetic. But that does not mean that there are things
which could be better, just that a blind conformance to the SQL standard
in this area will fundamentally damage our capabilities, so keep that in
mind.

What issue are you specifically addressing? It is clear that we do not
all have the same understanding of the age() function, but is that a
part of your statements above? Or not??

Please be specific about what you think needs changing, and why. And
I'll actually be able to pay attention after the 7.1 release ;)

- Thomas