| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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: Re: Problems with avg on interval data type |
| Date: | 2001-05-19 00:55:12 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0105190248311.900-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane 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?
Our interval is quite a bit different from the SQL version. In SQL, an
interval value looks like this:
INTERVAL -'5 12:30:15.3' DAY TO SECOND
The unit qualifier is required. Consequentially, I would reject anything
without units, except '0' maybe.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-05-19 01:14:21 | Re: Problems with avg on interval data type |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2001-05-18 23:30:14 | Re: Problems with avg on interval data type |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2001-05-19 01:10:10 | RE: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-05-19 00:39:09 | Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem |