> (Using ColId instead of datetime + IDENT gives reduce/reduce conflicts > that I don't want to mess with now.) > The date_part implementation is prepared for unknown field selectors, so > this should be all safe. Comments? Works for me. Since extract required explicit reserved words, I had just implemented the ones specified in the SQL9x standard. Your extension patch is a great idea, as long as others agree it can go into the beta (afaict this is an extremely low risk fix). - Thomas
- [HACKERS] extract vs date_part Peter Eisentraut
- Thomas Lockhart