[sNip]
> ISO 8601 gives more specific names.
>
> ISO 8601 Basic Format: P2Y10M15DT10H20M30S
> ISO 8601 Alternative Format: P00021015T102030
> ISO 8601 Extended Format: P0002-10-15T10:20:30
>
> In a way, the Extended Format is kinda nice, since itÂ’s
> almost human readable.
>
> -Original Message-
>
> Is this ready for application? It looks good to me. However, there is
> an "Open issues" section.
In my mind there were two categories of open issues
a) ones that are 100% backward (such as the comment about
outputting this format)
and
b) ones that are
> I have a working output-part (attached below, but I'm
> still cleaning up the documentation so I'll submit another
> one later)
Ugh. Something in this pc quoted some characters in the attachment.
Rather than trying to apply it, wait a couple days and I'll submit
an update where the docs m
roposal so the docs can be updated even if the proposal
> gets rejected.
>
> Ron
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 3:54 PM
> > To: Bruce Momjian
> > Cc: Ron Mayer; Peter
proposal
gets rejected.
Ron
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 3:54 PM
> To: Bruce Momjian
> Cc: Ron Mayer; Peter Eisentraut; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PATCHES] ISO 8601 &#x
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Where did we leave this?
I thought it was proposed work for 7.5.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
[ backtracking a little ]
"Ron Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom wrote:
>> 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 comple
Tom wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane writes:
> >> Yes, but by the same token "iso8601" isn't specific enough either.
ISO 8601 gives more specific names.
ISO 8601 Basic Format: P2Y10M15DT10H20M30S
ISO 8601 Alternative Format: P00021015T102030
ISO
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 ye
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> I don't really care for using that name for it ---
> iso8601
> Keep in mind that SQL itself is also a kind of ISO, so being more specific
> is useful.
Yes, but by the same token "iso8601" isn't specific enough either.
Several of
"Ron Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For example "why is 0.001 years less than 0.001 months".
And look at this:
regression=# select '0.99 years'::interval;
interval
--
11 mons
(1 row)
regression=# select '0.99 months'::interval;
interval
--
29 days 16:48:00
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
"Ron Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would it be useful if I added a 'datestyle' of 'ISO basic' which
> would produce the most terse formats ('19980115' for dates,
> and 'P1Y1M' for intervals)?
I don't really care for using that name for it --- for one thing, you
couldn't do
set date
"Ron Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom wrote:
>> Er, don't we support that already?
> Postgresql supports a rather bizzare shorthand that has a similar
> syntax, but AFAICT, doesn't match ISO 8601 in any way that makes
> it practical.
Well, it's *supposed* to match ISO, AFAICT (the commen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Is there a way of producing as well as reading this format? Or did I miss
> something?
Not yet, but I'd be happy to add it.
My immediate problem was having some 'P1Y6M' intervals to load.
I posted this much largely because it was useful to me so might
help others
Tom wrote:
> "Ron Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >Compared to the ISO 8601 time interval specification, the
> >postgresql interval syntax is quite verbose. For example:
>
> > Postgresql interval: ISO8601 Interval
> > --
Is there a way of producing as well as reading this format? Or did I miss
something?
cheers
andrew
Ron Mayer said:
> Short summary:
>
> This patch allows ISO 8601 "time intervals" using the "format
> with time-unit designators" to specify postgresql "intervals".
>
> Below I have (A) What
"Ron Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Compared to the ISO 8601 time interval specification, the
>postgresql interval syntax is quite verbose. For example:
> Postgresql interval: ISO8601 Interval
> ---
> '1 year
18 matches
Mail list logo
