Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> Yes, but by the same token "iso8601" isn't specific enough either.
>> Several of the other input formats we support have at least as good a
>> claim on that name.

> The only input formats we support are along the lines of

> @ 1 year 2 mons 3 days 4 hours 5 mins 6 secs
> @ 1 year 2 mons 3 days 04:05:06

Sorry, I was thinking of timestamp formats not intervals.
You're right that we don't have anything else particularly ISO-standard
for intervals, but my understanding is that formats like '2003-09-08
18:43:31.046283-04' are ISO8601 compatible for timestamps.  (Possibly
you need to put a T in there for strict compatibility, not sure.)

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to