Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: extract vs date_part - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Lockhart
Subject Re: extract vs date_part
Date
Msg-id 3A8D8B32.EE7C04E9@alumni.caltech.edu
Whole thread Raw
In response to extract vs date_part  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
> (Using ColId instead of datetime + IDENT gives reduce/reduce conflicts
> that I don't want to mess with now.)
> The date_part implementation is prepared for unknown field selectors, so
> this should be all safe.  Comments?

Works for me. Since extract required explicit reserved words, I had just
implemented the ones specified in the SQL9x standard. Your extension
patch is a great idea, as long as others agree it can go into the beta
(afaict this is an extremely low risk fix).
                     - Thomas

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: age() function not to spec, date subtraction?
Next
From: "Rod Taylor"
Date:
Subject: SPI_Free() causes backend to close.