> If I see this I must agree with Peter that to_char() is something
> other than "interval" to "interval-as-string" convertor. The current
> code use date/time as complex of date/time information _based_ on
> calendar practice --
> The other words: current to_char(interval) is interval to calendar
> date/time convertor.
Currently, yes. The reason why I'm advocating for a change is:
1) I can't imagine of what use the current behavior could possibly be. Is
there anyone at all using the current output of to_char(interval)?
2) to_char() is also used for converting numeric values to strings. It is
not in some way tied to date/time from a schema perspective, although it may
> I think we can do with the current to_char(interval):
> a) maintain it as "interval" to "calendar date/time string" convertor,
> b) if nobody wants to use it as a) we can delete it from sources
> and don't waste our time with it and use our time to real
> "interval" convertor.
This sounds reasonable to me. I'll even do a survey on the SQL list to see if
anyone there is using the current behavior.
Aglio Database Solutions
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly