That seems reasonable, too, although I was interested to learn that
this (and a few other expressions) weren't actually functions. Whether
that's actually meaningful for any implementation purposes is
debatable.
Even if the grammar is changed to allow it, it's probably worth making
a note of it in SQL compatibility documentation.
Speaking of which, since functions aren't in the SQL Commands
reference, where the compatibility documentation resides, does anyone
see value in adding compatibility information to The SQL Language
section as a whole?
I can contribute what I know, but I don't have a full copy of the spec.
-tfo
On Sep 29, 2004, at 11:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Thomas F.O'Connell" <tfo@sitening.com> writes:
>> I'm thinking something like this (with thanks to Stephan):
>
>> Note: EXTRACT is not a true function. SQL defines it as an expression
>> that happens to look similar to a function call.
>
> Rather than documenting this, maybe we should change the grammar to
> allow it?
>
> regards, tom lane
