Tom wrote: 
> "Ron Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom wrote:
> >> Er, don't we support that already?
> > ...AFAICT, doesn't match ISO 8601...
> Well, it's *supposed* to match ISO....  Unless ISO has put out 
> multiple specs that cover this?

Any way to tell if this is the case.  
8601's the one I see cited the most.

> > ...I'd not want to break backward compatability...'1H30M'
> I doubt anyone is using it, because it's completely undocumented.
> If we're going to support the real ISO spec, I'd suggest ripping
> out any not-quite-there variant.

I'm happy to look into it.  Rip out completely?  Ifdef? 

> We've been gradually cleaning up the problems, but if if you find 
> something that doesn't seem to make sense, it's likely a bug rather
> than anything we want to preserve. 

I've seen a few more cases that don't make sense.

For example "why is 0.001 years less than 0.001 months".

  betadb=# select '0.01 years'::interval

  betadb=# select '0.01 months'::interval

If I'm breaking backward compatability anyway, I'd be happy to tweak
things like this one too.  Unless, of course someone can give me a 
reason why we want fractional years rounded to months, but fractional 
months are rounded to fractions of a second.

   Ron Mayer.

PS: mailinglist etiquite question... for discussion, should I
    more this to hackers, or continue it here.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

Reply via email to