From: | Konstantin Izmailov <pgfizm(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: information_schema.columns changes needed for OLEDB |
Date: | 2009-05-29 22:14:20 |
Message-ID: | 72746b5e0905291514r47d15f62pbb32c9c2cac55cfd@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom,
this is very helpful - thank you so much!
I had to discover those 'missing' functions one by one, usually after users'
complaints.
Konstantin
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Konstantin Izmailov <pgfizm(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > you know that some Postgres functions are listed in pg_proc while others
> are
> > not. For example, all Data Type Formatting function are in pg_proc
> (to_char,
> > to_hex, ...). While several of the Date/Time Functions are not there
> > (extract, localtime, ...).
>
> The ones that appear not to be there are ones that the SQL standard
> demands special weird syntax for. The grammar translates such calls
> to standard function calls to underlying functions, which usually are
> named a bit differently to avoid confusion. For instance
> extract(field from some_expr) becomes date_part('field', some_expr).
>
> If you want to know what all of these are, see the func_expr production
> in parser/gram.y.
>
> > This causes issues to Windows integration as well.
>
> Complain to the SQL standards committee, especially to those members
> who seem to think COBOL represented the apex of programming language
> syntax design :-(
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2009-05-29 22:16:21 | Re: search_path vs extensions |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-05-29 22:05:48 | Re: Testing of parallel restore with current snapshot |