Re: [HACKERS] Interval month, week -> day

Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> writes:
> On Sep 4, 2006, at 9:41 , Tom Lane wrote:
>> This patch fails to apply --- looks like whitespace got mangled in
>> transit. Please resend as an attachment.

> Please let me know if you have any problems with this one.

Ah, that one works --- applied. A few comments:

* You worried about the "tmask" coding in your original message, but
I think that's OK as-is. The point of that code, IIUC, is to reject
multiple specifications of the same field type, eg '1 day 2 days'.
If we changed it then we'd reject '1.5 month 2 days', whereas I think
least surprise would dictate adding the components to give 1 month
17 days.

* AFAICT the ecpg regression tests are not affected by this change.

* You mentioned being unable to get the ecpg tests to run on your
machine. I'm sure Michael and Joachim would like the details. The
ecpg regression tests are pretty new and some portability problems
are to be expected, but they seem to be passing on all the machines
Michael and Joachim and I have access to.

regards, tom lane