On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 07:38:39PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I think the basic problem is that the original author had the idea of
> doing:
>
> SELECT INTERVAL (2) '100. seconds';
>interval
> --
>00:01:41
>
> and using (2) in that location as a short-ha
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:06:56AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> You sure about that? The grammar for INTERVAL is weird.
>
> > Well, I tested what is taken on input, and yes I agree the grammar is
> > weird (but not more weird than timestamp/timestamptz
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> You sure about that? The grammar for INTERVAL is weird.
> Well, I tested what is taken on input, and yes I agree the grammar is
> weird (but not more weird than timestamp/timestamptz, mind). The input
> function only accepts the precision just after t
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > I just noticed when working on DDL deparsing that the typmodout routine
> > for intervals is broken. The code uses
>
> > if (precision != INTERVAL_FULL_PRECISION)
> > snprintf(res, 64, "%s(%d)", fieldstr, precision);
> > else
> >
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> I just noticed when working on DDL deparsing that the typmodout routine
> for intervals is broken. The code uses
> if (precision != INTERVAL_FULL_PRECISION)
> snprintf(res, 64, "%s(%d)", fieldstr, precision);
> else
> snprintf(res,
