| From: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, Sebastien FLAESCH <sf(at)4js(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: INTERVAL SECOND limited to 59 seconds? |
| Date: | 2009-06-10 03:31:47 |
| Message-ID: | 4A2F2923.2010304@cheapcomplexdevices.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> writes:
>> regression=# select interval '1 1' hour;
>
> Hmm, not sure about that one. We decided a week or two back that we
> don't want the thing discarding higher-order field values, and this
> seems pretty close to that. As the code is set up (plus my patch)
> I think it's the case that only the rightmost field specification
> of the interval qualifier makes any difference for parsing the value;
> the leftmost field doesn't really affect what we think the constant
> means. That seems like a nice simple consistency property ...
Sounds good. I'm happy with it then.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mirko Sertic | 2009-06-10 06:58:03 | Mogwai ER-DesignerNG 1.7-SNAPSHOT available |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-10 02:59:19 | Re: INTERVAL SECOND limited to 59 seconds? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-10 03:33:32 | Re: pgindent run coming |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-06-10 03:30:48 | Re: pgindent run coming |