On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 2:19 AM, Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hmmm... Certainly what I had in datatype.sgml was wrong, but I'm > now thinking 5.5.4.2.1 and 5.5.4.2.2 would be the most clear? >
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "5.5.4.2.1". In the spec you linked to, clause 5 "Date and time format representations" doesn't have any numbered subsections at all. It's just a half-page saying, basically, that if applications want to interchange information about datetime formats, they can. Much like the ents, spec authors don't like to say anything unless it's worth taking a very long time to say. So, to the best of my knowledge, there is no 5.5.4.2.1. There is no 5.5. Originally I assumed that when you wrote 5.5.4.2.1, you meant 4.4.4.2.1. However, when I looked closer I noticed that this section is about a textual "representation" of the format, not about the format itself. Therefore I suggested 4.4.3.2, which does specify the format. Cheers, BJ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
